But the deeper point is that there simply must be answers to questions of this kind, whether we know them or not. And these are not areas where we can afford to simply respect the “traditions” of others and agree to disagree. Why will science increasingly decide such questions? Because the discrepant answers people give to them—along with the consequences that follow in terms of human relationships, states of mind, acts of violence, entanglements with the law, etc.—translate into differences in our brains, in the brains of others, and in the world at large. I hope to show that when talking about values, we are actually talking about an interdependent world of facts.
但更深的要点是，不管我们知道与否，这个问题一定有答案。而且这不是可以简单地靠尊重不同“传统”就能表示同意和不同意的问题。为什么科学将可以越来越多地解决这类问题呢？因为人们对于一些问题 –像遵循人际关系的重要性、头脑的状态、暴力行为和法律纠纷，等等 – 给出的有差异的答案会转换成我们脑中的差异、别人脑中的差异和外部世界的差异。我希望展现当我们谈论价值的时候，实际上是在谈论一个相互关联的事实世界
"And these are not areas..."意思是：
在这些问题上一味只是尊重“传统”以及认可差异是我们无法
接受的（即会带来我们无法承受的后果。后面是解释为什么）
"Because the discrepant answers people give to them—along with the consequences that follow in terms of human relationships, states of mind, acts of violence, entanglements with the law, etc.—translate into differences in our brains, in the brains of others, and in the world at large"
破折号后面不是给前面them举例，而是说这些有差异的回答并
伴随以由这些答案分歧所引起的（以下这些方面）的后果，将转变。。。
接下来一段里的这句：
“We will see that facts of this sort exhaust what we can reasonably mean by terms like “good” and “evil.”
“我们会看到这类事实将释放出合理的“善”与“恶”的含义”
我理解是，这类事实将会涵盖我们所有可能赋予的善恶含义
接下来一段里：
“I can say with some confidence that a shared belief in the limitations of reason lies at the bottom of these cultural divides”
不是“有一个受理性制约的共有信念”，而是，有一个共同
信念，即理性是有限的。
接下来的两段里：
两段的最后一个词“right”和“left”是对应的，即宗教右派
和自由主义左派。
第二段里“While John Stuart Mill might conform to our cultural ideal of goodness better than Osama bin Laden does”不是“虽然John Stuart Mill认为“我们”文化思想中的善良要优于Osama bin Laden的”。这句的意思是，或许米勒
比拉登更符合我们关于善的文化理念。
先到这儿。