Discrimination is wrong only when someone or something is discriminated
against because of prejudice. But to use the word in this sense, as so many
people do, is to destroy its true meaning. If you discriminate against
something because of general preconceptions rather than particular insights,
then you are not discriminating-bias has clouded the clarity of vision which
discrimination demands.
One of the great ironies of American life is that we manage to discriminate
in the practical decisions of daily life, but usually fail to discriminate when
we make public policies. Most people are very discriminating when it comes to
buying a car, for example, because they realize that cars have differences.
Similarly, an increasing number of people have learned to discriminate in what
they eat. Some foods are better than others-and indiscriminate eating can
undermine one's health.
Yet in public affairs, good judgment is depressingly rare. In many areas
which involve the common good, we see a failure to tell differences.
想請教各位，在原文中，discrimination有點語帶雙關，可以指原意：「區別；辨別」之
意，如同原文中想表達的true meaning，但也可以指現今普遍認定的負面意思；「歧視；
偏見」，但這兩層涵義難以以同一個中文字表達（不像英文都是discrimination）。
遇到這種情況，各位會怎麼處理呢？
是一律翻成「歧視」、一概翻成「區別」，還是視上下文，有時翻成前者，有時翻成後者
呢？（但這樣就感受不出原文的雙關）
這是輔大翻譯所的考古題，若在考試的情況下，各位會怎麼抉擇呢？
另外再附上我的翻譯，希望各位前輩給予建議：
只有當事物是基於偏見而受到歧視時，歧視本身才是不對的行為。然而，以這樣的見
解來使用這個字眼，其實是摧毀了它的真義，正如同許多人所做的。若你歧視某件事物，
是基於普遍的成見，而非特定的看法，那麼你就不是歧視－－偏見已將歧視所必要的清晰
視角給遮蔽了。
在美國人的生活裡，最大的諷刺之一，便是吾人設法在日常的實用決定上產生歧視，
卻往往無法在公共政策的決策中產生歧視。舉例來說，大部分的人在買車時是相當有歧見
的，因為他們曉得，車子有差異性。同樣地，越來越多人會在飲食方面進行歧視。某些食
物比其他的好：而對吃若不帶有歧見，就可能有礙健康。
可是，在公共事務上，令人沮喪的是，好的判斷十分少見，涉及到公共利益時，我們
難以進行差異的辨別和歧見。