バートランド・ラッセル「現代の危機と教育の役割」
* 原著： Fact and Fiction, 1961, Part II, chapt.9: Education for a difficult world
* 出典：牧野力(編)『ラッセル思想辞典』所収
以下は、牧野力氏の要旨訳（ただし字句を少し修正）に原文を追加したものです。
今日、いくらかでも誠実な（軽薄ではない）青年は、この世界において、現代の危機を減らすことが可能である明確な行動指針（course of action）を見つけられないことによって、自分たちの善悪の衝動が途方に暮れていることに気づきがちである。彼らの困惑について安易かつ単純な回答があると、私は言うつもりはない。しかし、適切な教育によって、彼らに諸問題を理解したり、あれやこれやの提案された解決法について批判的に評価したりできると感じさせることができる、と私は信じている。それらの問題を解決困難にしている、いくつかの理由が存在している。
第一は、現代の社会と政治は、ごく少数の人のみが理解できる複雑な技能（技術・能力）に支配されているということでである。科学者は現代の魔法使い（medicine man）でもある。・・・。
第二は、現代の技術的進歩は新しい社会心理を必要なものとしたということである。（これは、根本的な発想の転換を促す 教育の役割となる。）
歴史の夜明けから今世紀まで、人間の成功への道は競走（争い）に勝つことであった。 我々の祖先は、敵を皆殺しにして土地を奪い 金持になった。・・・。我々生き残った人間は、彼らの子孫である。
戦争は人間性の一部だという誤った説すら横行するようになった。
通常兵器による近代戦ですら、戦勝国にも、敗戦国以上の大損害を与えた。 現代科学の進歩は、核兵器を生み、遂に国策が戦争手段に訴えても実現できないことを示した。冷静な頭脳だけはそのことを悟っている。
現代の危機は、通常兵器時代の発想が一切無用で、根本的発想の転換を切に求めている。
今人類は、物事の考え方と感じ方を変革せずには生存できない所に追い込まれている。
この変革を果すのは、現代に対応した教育の役割である。好戦的な遊牧時代の感情に甘え、知的開眼と実践とを怠れば、人類の今までの文化的蓄積も消え去る。 新しい社会心理として、競争から協力へと方向転換し、 知恵をもっていかに知識・技術を活用すべきかを理解させるのが、（今日の）教育の役割である。
( Young people who are not completely frivolous are apt to find in the world of the present day that their impulses of good will are baffled by failure to find any clear course of action which might diminish the perils of the time. I will not pretend that there is any easy or simple answer to their bewilderment, but I do think that a suitable education could make young people feel more capable of understanding the problems and of critically estimating this or that suggested solution.
There are several reasons which make our problems difficult to solve, if not to understand. The first of these is that modern society and modern politics are governed by difficult skills which very few people understand. The man of science is the modern medicine man. He can perform all kinds of magic. He can say, 'Let there be light', and there is light. He can keep you warm in winter, and keep your food cool in summer. He can transport you through the air as quickly as a magic carpet in the Arabian Nights. He promises to exterminate your enemies in a few seconds, and fails you only when you ask him to promise that your enemies will not exterminate you. All this he achieves by means which, if you are not one in a million, are completely mysterious to you. And when mystery-mongers tell you tall stories of future marvels you cannot tell whether to believe them or not.
Another thing that makes the modern world baffling is that technical developments have made a new social psychology necessary. From the dawn of history until the present century the road to success was victory in competition. We descend from many centuries of progenitors who exterminated their enemies, occupied their lands, and grew rich. In England this process took place in the time of Hengist and Horsa. In the United States it took place during the eighteenth and nine teenth centuries. We therefore admire a certain sort of character, namely the sort of character that enables you to kill skilfully and without compunction. The milder believers in this creed content themselves with inflicting economic rather than physical death, but the psychology is much the same. In the modern world, owing to increase of skill, this process is no longer so satisfactory. In a modern war even the victors suffer more than if there had been no war. To the British, who are enduring the results of complete victory in two great wars, this is fairly obvious. What applies in war, applies also in the economic sphere. The victors in a competition do not grow so rich as both parties could by combination. The half-unconscious appreciation of these facts produces in intelligent young people an impulse towards general good will, but this impulse is baffled by the mutual hostility of powerful groups. Good will in general-yes; good will in particular-no. A Hindu may love mankind, but must not love a Pakistani; a Jew may believe that men are all one family, but dare not extend this feeling to the Arabs; a Christian may think it his duty to love his neighbour, but only if his neighbour is not a Communist. These conflicts between the general and the particular seem to make it impossible to have any one clear principle in action. This trouble is due to a very general failure to adapt human nature to technique. Our feelings are those appropriate to warlike nomads in rather empty regions, but our technique is such as must bring disaster unless our feelings can become more co-operative.
Education if it is to be adapted to our modern needs must young people to understand the problems raised by this situation. The imparting of knowledge in education has always had two objects: on the one hand, to give skill; and on the other, to give a vaguer thing which we may call wisdom. The part of skill has become very much larger than it used to be and is increasingly threatening to oust the part devoted to wisdom. At the same time it must be admitted that wisdom in our world is impossible except for those who realize the great part played by skill, for it is increase of skill that is the distinctive feature of our world. During the late war, when I dined among the Fellows of my College, I found that those who were scientific were usually absent, but on their rare appearances one got glimpses of mysterious work such as only very few living people could understand. It was the work of men of this sort that was the most decisive in the war. Such men inevitably form a kind of aristocracy, since their skill is rare and must remain rare until by some new method men's congenital aptitudes have been increased. There is for example a great deal of important work which can only be done by those who are good at higher mathematics, and the immense majority of mankind would never become good at higher mathematics, even if all their education were directed to this end. Men are not all equal in congenital capacity, and any system of education which assumes that they are involves a possibly disastrous waste of good material.
But although scientific skill is necessary, it is by no means sufficient. A dictatorship of men of science would very soon become horrible. Skill without wisdom may be purely destructive, and would be very likely to prove so. For this reason, if for no other, it is of great importance that those who receive a scientific education should not be merely scientific, but should have some understanding of that kind of wisdom which, if it can be imparted at all, can only be imparted by the cultural side of education. Science enables us to know the means to any chosen end, but it does not help us to decide what ends we shall pursue. If you wish to exterminate the human race, it will show you how to do it. ...
