Barry Schwartz: Our loss of wisdom

Translator: Triin Sinissaar Reviewer: Maria Liivak

In his inaugural address,

Oma inauguratsioonikõnes

Barack Obama appealed to each of us to give our best

kutsus Barack Obama meid kõiki üles andma endast parimat,

as we try to extricate ourselves from this current financial crisis.

et praegusest finantskriisist välja rabeleda.

But what did he appeal to?

Aga mis see oli, milleks ta meid üles kutsus?

He did not, happily, follow in the footsteps of his predecessor,

Ta ei astunud rõõmsalt oma eelkäija jälgedes,

and tell us to just go shopping.

ega käskinud meil lihtsalt šoppama minna.

Nor did he tell us, "Trust us. Trust your country.

Ta ei öelnud ka: "Usaldage meid. Usaldage oma riiki.

Invest, invest, invest."

Investeerige, investeerige, investeerige."

Instead, what he told us was to put aside childish things.

Selle asemel soovitas ta jätta kõrvale lapsikud asjad.

And he appealed to virtue.

Ja kutsus üles vooruslikkusele.

Virtue is an old-fashioned word.

"Voorus" on vanamoodne sõna.

It seems a little out of place in a cutting-edge environment like this one.

Siinses ülimalt kaasaegses keskkonnas mõjub see kohatuna.

And besides, some of you might be wondering,

Pealegi võivad mõned teist küsida,

what the hell does it mean?

et mida põrgut see õieti tähendab?

Let me begin with an example.

Lubage, et alustan näitega.

This is the job description of a hospital janitor

See on haigla koristaja tööjuhend,

that is scrolling up on the screen.

mida te ekraanilt näete.

And all of the items on it are unremarkable.

Mitte ühegi punkti juures pole midagi erilist.

They're the things you would expect:

Need on asjad, mida võikski oodata:

mop the floors, sweep them, empty the trash, restock the cabinets.

pese põrandad, pühi põrandad, tühjenda prügikast, täienda varusid.

It may be a little surprising how many things there are,

Võib-olla on üllatav, kui palju neid punkte on,

but it's not surprising what they are.

aga ei ole üllatav, mis need on.

But the one thing I want you to notice about them is this:

Kuid ma tahan juhtida teie tähelepanu ühele asjale:

even though this is a very long list,

kuigi see on väga pikk nimekiri,

there isn't a single thing on it that involves other human beings.

ei ole siin ainsatki asja, mis puudutaks teisi inimesi.

Not one.

Mitte ainsatki.

The janitor's job could just as well be done in a mortuary as in a hospital.

Koristaja võiks oma tööd teha samahästi surnukuuris kui haiglas.

And yet, when some psychologists interviewed hospital janitors

Ometi, kui psühholoogid mõne haigla koristajaga rääkisid,

to get a sense of what they thought their jobs were like,

et mõista, millisena nemad oma tööd näevad,

they encountered Mike,

kohtasid nad Mike'i,

who told them about how he stopped mopping the floor

kes jutustas, kuidas ta katkestas põrandapesemise,

because Mr. Jones was out of his bed getting a little exercise,

sest härra Jones oli voodist väljas, et veidi treenida,

trying to build up his strength, walking slowly up and down the hall.

ta püüdis oma jõudu taastada, kõndides aeglaselt koridoris edasi-tagasi.

And Charlene told them about how she ignored her supervisor's admonition

Charlene rääkis, kuidas ta eiras oma ülemuse manitsust

and didn't vacuum the visitor's lounge

ja jättis külalisteruumi tolmuimejaga puhastamata,

because there were some family members who were there all day, every day

sest ühe patsiendi sugulased, kes viibisid seal iga päev, hommikust õhtuni,

who, at this moment, happened to be taking a nap.

juhtusid sel ajal tukastama.

And then there was Luke,

Ja seal oli Luke,

who washed the floor in a comatose young man's room twice

kes pesi koomas viibiva noormehe palati põrandat kaks korda,

because the man's father, who had been keeping a vigil for six months,

sest tolle isa, kes oli valvanud poja juures kuus kuud,

didn't see Luke do it the first time,

ei näinud, kuidas Luke seda esimest korda tegi

and his father was angry.

ja oli vihane.

And behavior like this from janitors, from technicians, from nurses

Kui niimoodi käituvad koristajad, laborandid, õed

and, if we're lucky now and then, from doctors,

ja kui meil veab, siis ka arstid,

doesn't just make people feel a little better,

siis ei tee see mitte ainult inimeste tuju paremaks,

it actually improves the quality of patient care

vaid see parandab ka patsientide hooldamise taset

and enables hospitals to run well.

ja paneb haigla hästi toimima.

Now, not all janitors are like this, of course.

Loomulikult ei ole kõik koristajad sellised.

But the ones who are think that these sorts of human interactions

Aga need, kes on, leiavad, et niisugused inimlikud suhted,

involving kindness, care and empathy

mis on seotud lahkuse, hoolitsuse ja empaatiaga,

are an essential part of the job.

on elementaarne osa nende tööst.

And yet their job description contains not one word about other human beings.

Sellegipoolest ei sisalda nende töökirjeldus mitte sõnagi teiste inimeste kohta.

These janitors have the moral will to do right by other people.

Neil koristajatel on moraalne tahe teha teistele head.

And beyond this, they have the moral skill to figure out what "doing right" means.

Lisaks on neil moraalne oskus aimata, mida "hea tegemine" tähendab.

"Practical wisdom," Aristotle told us,

Aristoteles ütles: "Praktiline tarkus

"is the combination of moral will and moral skill."

on moraalse tahte ja moraalse oskuse summa."

A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule,

Tark inimene teab, kunas ja kuidas teha erandit iga reegli puhul,

as the janitors knew when to ignore the job duties in the service of other objectives.

nagu koristajad teadsid, millal eirata töökohustusi teiste eesmärkide nimel.

A wise person knows how to improvise,

Tark inimene teab, kuidas improviseerida,

as Luke did when he re-washed the floor.

nagu teadis Luke, kui ta põranda teist korda üle pesi.

Real-world problems are often ambiguous and ill-defined

Reaalses elus on probleemid sageli mitmeti mõistetavad ja raskesti määratletavad

and the context is always changing.

ja kontekst muutub pidevalt.

A wise person is like a jazz musician --

Tark inimene on nagu džässmuusik -

using the notes on the page, but dancing around them,

ta kasutab paberile märgitud noote, aga tantsiskleb nende ümber,

inventing combinations that are appropriate for the situation and the people at hand.

leiutades kombinatsioone, mis sobivad käesoleva situatsiooni ja inimestega.

A wise person knows how to use these moral skills

Tark inimene teab, kuidas kasutada neid moraalseid oskusi

in the service of the right aims.

õigete eesmärkide nimel.

To serve other people, not to manipulate other people.

Et teisi inimesi teenida, mitte et nendega manipuleerida.

And finally, perhaps most important,

Lõpuks, mis võib-olla on kõige olulisem,

a wise person is made, not born.

tark inimene tehakse, mitte ta ei sünni.

Wisdom depends on experience,

Tarkus sõltub kogemusest

and not just any experience.

ja mitte ükskõik millisest kogemusest.

You need the time to get to know the people that you're serving.

Sul on vaja aega, et õppida tundma inimesi, keda sa teenid.

You need permission to be allowed to improvise,

Sul on vaja luba improviseerida,

try new things, occasionally to fail and to learn from your failures.

proovida uusi asju, vahel eksida ja oma eksimustest õppida.

And you need to be mentored by wise teachers.

Ja sul on vaja tarkade õpetajate juhatust.

When you ask the janitors who behaved like the ones I described

Kui te küsite koristajatelt, kes käitusid nii, nagu ma kirjeldasin,

how hard it is to learn to do their job,

kui raske on nende tööd selgeks õppida,

they tell you that it takes lots of experience.

ütlevad nad teile, et läheb vaja palju kogemusi.

And they don't mean it takes lots of experience to learn how to mop floors and empty trash cans.

Kogemusi ei lähe vaja mitte põrandapesemiseks ega prügikastide tühjendamiseks.

It takes lots of experience to learn how to care for people.

Palju kogemusi läheb vaja, et õppida inimestest hoolima.

At TED, brilliance is rampant.

TED-il valitseb ohjeldamatu geniaalsus.

It's scary.

See on hirmutav.

The good news is you don't need to be brilliant to be wise.

Hea uudis on see, et tark olemiseks pole vaja geenius olla.

The bad news is that without wisdom,

Halb uudis on see, et ilma tarkuseta

brilliance isn't enough.

geniaalsusest ei piisa.

It's as likely to get you and other people into trouble as anything else.

See tekitab päris kindlasti probleeme nii teile kui ka teistele.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

Now, I hope that we all know this.

Ma loodan, et me kõik teame seda.

There's a sense in which it's obvious,

Mingis mõttes on see iseenesestmõistetav,

and yet, let me tell you a little story.

kuid lubage, et räägin teile ühe loo.

It's a story about lemonade.

See on lugu limonaadist.

A dad and his seven-year-old son were watching a Detroit Tigers game at the ballpark.

Isa ja ta 11-aastane poeg vaatasid pesapalliväljakul Detroit Tigersi mängu.

His son asked him for some lemonade

Poeg palus limonaadi

and Dad went to the concession stand to buy it.

ja isa läks müügileti juurde seda ostma.

All they had was Mike's Hard Lemonade,

Müügil oli ainult limonaadi Mike's Hard,

which was five percent alcohol.

mis sisaldab viis protsenti alkoholi.

Dad, being an academic, had no idea that Mike's Hard Lemonade contained alcohol.

Kuna isa on akadeemik, ei olnud tal aimugi, et Mike's Hard limonaadis on alkoholi.

So he brought it back.

Ta viis selle pojale.

And the kid was drinking it, and a security guard spotted it,

Kui poeg seda jõi, märkas neid turvamees,

and called the police, who called an ambulance

kes kutsus politsei, kes kutsus kiirabi,

that rushed to the ballpark, whisked the kid to the hospital.

mis kihutas pesapalliväljakule ja viis poisi kohe haiglasse.

The emergency room ascertained that the kid had no alcohol in his blood.

Esmaabis tuvastati, et poisi veres ei leidu alkoholi.

And they were ready to let the kid go.

Ja nad olid valmis laskma poisil minna.

But not so fast.

Kuid ärgem kiirustagem.

The Wayne County Child Welfare Protection Agency said no.

Wayne County lastekaitseamet ütles ei.

And the child was sent to a foster home for three days.

Laps saadeti kolmeks päevaks tugiperesse.

At that point, can the child go home?

Kas seejärel võis laps koju minna?

Well, a judge said yes, but only if the dad leaves the house and checks into a motel.

Kohtunik andis loa, aga ainult tingimusel, et isa lahkub ja läheb motelli.

After two weeks, I'm happy to report,

Teatan rõõmuga, et kahe nädala pärast

the family was reunited.

oli pere jälle koos.

But the welfare workers and the ambulance people

Lastekaitse- ja kiirabitöötajad

and the judge all said the same thing:

ning kohtunik ütlesid kõik ühte ja sedasama:

"We hate to do it but we have to follow procedure."

"Me teeme seda vastumeelselt, aga me peame ettekirjutusi järgima."

How do things like this happen?

Kuidas sellised asjad juhtuvad?

Scott Simon, who told this story on NPR,

Scott Simon, kes seda lugu raadios rääkis,

said, "Rules and procedures may be dumb,

ütles: "Reeglid ja ettekirjutused võivad olla nõmedad,

but they spare you from thinking."

aga nad säästavad teid mõtlemisest."

And, to be fair, rules are often imposed

Tõtt-öelda kehtestatakse reegleid sageli sellepärast,

because previous officials have been lax

et eelmised ametnikud on olnud hooletud

and they let a child go back to an abusive household.

ja lubanud viia lapse tagasi vägivaldsesse kodusse.

Fair enough.

Nii see on.

When things go wrong, as of course they do,

Kui midagi läheb valesti, ja seda loomulikult juhtub,

we reach for two tools to try to fix them.

siis haarame me kahe tööriista järele, et asja parandada.

One tool we reach for is rules.

Üheks tööriistaks on reeglid.

Better ones, more of them.

Paremad reeglid, rohkem reegleid.

The second tool we reach for is incentives.

Teiseks tööriistaks on stiimulid.

Better ones, more of them.

Paremad stiimulid, rohkem stiimuleid.

What else, after all, is there?

Lõppude lõpuks - milliseid muid võimalusi on?

We can certainly see this in response to the current financial crisis.

Me võime näha seda seoses praeguse finantskriisiga.

Regulate, regulate, regulate.

Reguleerime, reguleerime, reguleerime.

Fix the incentives, fix the incentives, fix the incentives ...

Loome stiimuleid, loome stiimuleid, loome stiimuleid...

The truth is that neither rules nor incentives

Tõde on see, et ei reeglitest ega stiimulitest

are enough to do the job.

ei piisa selleks, et edu saavutada.

How could you even write a rule that got the janitors to do what they did?

Kuidas üldse kirjutada reeglit, mis paneks koristajaid tegema seda, mida nad tegid?

And would you pay them a bonus for being empathic?

Ja kas maksta neile preemiat empaatia eest?

It's preposterous on its face.

See on täiesti naeruväärne mõte.

And what happens is that as we turn increasingly to rules,

Juhtub see, et kui me toetume üha enam reeglitele,

rules and incentives may make things better in the short run,

võivad reeglid ja stiimulid parandada asjade seisu lühiajaliselt,

but they create a downward spiral

aga nad loovad allakäiguspiraali,

that makes them worse in the long run.

mis teeb kõike pikas perspektiivis halvemaks.

Moral skill is chipped away by an over-reliance on rules

Kui jääda liiga palju lootma reeglitele, kaovad moraalsed oskused

that deprives us of the opportunity

ja kaovad meie võimalused

to improvise and learn from our improvisations.

improviseerida ja oma improvisatsioonist õppida.

And moral will is undermined

Ja moraalset tahet õõnestab

by an incessant appeal to incentives

pidev lootma jäämine stiimulitele,

that destroy our desire to do the right thing.

mis hävitavad meie soovi õigesti käituda.

And without intending it,

Ilma seda kavatsemata

by appealing to rules and incentives,

kuulutame reeglite ja stiimulite poole pöördudes

we are engaging in a war on wisdom.

sõja tarkusele.

Let me just give you a few examples,

Annan teile paar näidet,

first of rules and the war on moral skill.

kõigepealt seoses reeglitega ja sõjaga moraalsete oskuste vastu.

The lemonade story is one.

Üks neist oli see limonaadi lugu.

Second, no doubt more familiar to you,

Teine, millega te olete kindlasti paremini tuttavad,

is the nature of modern American education:

puudutab kaasaegse ameerika hariduse olemust:

scripted, lock-step curricula.

ettekirjutatud, marsisammu sarnased õppekavad.

Here's an example from Chicago kindergarten.

Siin on näide Chicago lasteaiast.

Reading and enjoying literature

Loeme ja naudime kirjandust

and words that begin with 'B.'

ning õpime sõnu, mis algavad V-tähega.

"The Bath:" Assemble students on a rug

Vann: pange õpilased vaiba peale istuma

and give students a warning about the dangers of hot water.

ja hoiatage neid tulise vee ohtude eest.

Say 75 items in this script to teach a 25-page picture book.

Lugege ette stsenaariumis antud 75 punkti ja näidake 25-leheküljelist pildiraamatut.

All over Chicago in every kindergarten class in the city,

Terves Chicagos, igas lasteaiarühmas üle terve linna,

every teacher is saying the same words in the same way on the same day.

ütleb iga õpetaja samal päeval samamoodi samu sõnu.

We know why these scripts are there.

Me teame, milleks need stsenaariumid vajalikud on.

We don't trust the judgment of teachers enough

Me ei usalda õpetajate otsustusvõimet piisavalt,

to let them loose on their own.

et lasta neil iseseisvalt tegutseda.

Scripts like these are insurance policies against disaster.

Niisugused stsenaariumid on kindlustuspoliisid katastroofi vastu.

And they prevent disaster.

Ja nad hoiavad katastroofi ära.

But what they assure in its place is mediocrity.

Aga asemele annavad nad keskpärasuse.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

Don't get me wrong. We need rules!

Ärge saage minust valesti aru. Meil vajame reegleid!

Jazz musicians need some notes --

Džässmuusikul on vaja mõningaid noote.

most of them need some notes on the page.

Enamik neist vajab mõningaid paberile pandud noote.

We need more rules for the bankers, God knows.

Jumal teab, et meil on vaja karmimaid reegleid pankuritele.

But too many rules prevent accomplished jazz musicians

Aga liiga karmid reeglid ei lase vilunud džässmuusikul

from improvising.

improviseerida.

And as a result, they lose their gifts,

Selle tulemusena kaotavad nad oma ande,

or worse, they stop playing altogether.

või loobuvad üleüldse mängimisest.

Now, how about incentives?

Kuidas on lood stiimulitega?

They seem cleverer.

Need tunduvad nutikamad.

If you have one reason for doing something

Kui teil on põhjus millegi tegemiseks

and I give you a second reason for doing the same thing,

ja ma annan teile teise põhjuse, et teha sama asja,

it seems only logical that two reasons are better than one

tundub olevat loogiline, et kaks põhjust on parem kui üks

and you're more likely to do it.

ja on tõenäolisem, et te seda teete.

Right?

Eks?

Well, not always.

Noh, mitte alati.

Sometimes two reasons to do the same thing seem to compete with one another

Paistab, et vahel hakkavad kaks põhjust millegi tegemiseks omavahel võistlema,

instead of complimenting,

selle asemel, et üksteist täiendada,

and they make people less likely to do it.

ja see kahandab tõenäosust, et inimesed seda teevad.

I'll just give you one example because time is racing.

Annan teile vaid ühe näite, sest aeg tiksub.

In Switzerland, back about 15 years ago,

15 aastat tagasi püüti Šveitsis

they were trying to decide where to site nuclear waste dumps.

otsustada, kuhu paigutada tuumajäätmete prügilad.

There was going to be a national referendum.

Kavatseti korraldada üleriigiline referendum.

Some psychologists went around and polled citizens who were very well informed.

Psühholoogid küsitlesid kodanikke, kes olid teemaga hästi kursis.

And they said, "Would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?"

Küsiti: "Kas te oleksite nõus, et teie ümbruskonnas asuks tuumajäätmete prügila?"

Astonishingly, 50 percent of the citizens said yes.

Uskumatu, aga 50% kodanikest vastas jaatavalt.

They knew it was dangerous.

Nad teadsid, et see on ohtlik.

They thought it would reduce their property values.

Nad arvasid, et see kahandab nende kinnisvara väärtust.

But it had to go somewhere

Aga jäätmed tuli kuskile panna

and they had responsibilities as citizens.

ja neil oli kodanikena oma vastutus.

The psychologists asked other people a slightly different question.

Siis küsisid püshholoogid inimestelt veidi teistsuguse küsimuse.

They said, "If we paid you six weeks' salary every year

Küsiti: "Kui me maksaksime teile igal aastal kuue nädala palga,

would you be willing to have a nuclear waste dump in your community?"

kas te oleksite nõus, et teie ümbruskonnas asuks tuumajäätmete prügila?"

Two reasons. It's my responsibility and I'm getting paid.

Kaks põhjust. See on minu vastutus ja mulle makstakse.

Instead of 50 percent saying yes,

Kui varem vastas 50% jaatavalt,

25 percent said yes.

siis nüüd ainult 25%.

What happens is that

Juhtus see, et

the second this introduction of incentive gets us

niipea, kui sisse tuuakse teine stiimul, see mõjub meile,

so that instead of asking, "What is my responsibility?"

ja selle asemel, et küsida: "Milline on minu vastutus?"

all we ask is, "What serves my interests?"

küsime me üksnes: "Kas see on minu huvides?"

When incentives don't work,

Kui stiimulid ei tööta,

when CEOs ignore the long-term health of their companies

kui tippjuhid ignoreerivad oma ettevõtete pikaaegset heaolu

in pursuit of short-term gains that will lead to massive bonuses,

lühiajalise kasumisaamise eesmärgil, mis toob kaasa hiigelpreemiad,

the response is always the same.

on reaktsioon alati sama.

Get smarter incentives.

Leiutame nutikamad stiimulid.

The truth is that there are no incentives that you can devise

Tõde on see, et pole võimalik välja mõelda ühtegi stiimulit,

that are ever going to be smart enough.

mis oleks piisavalt nutikas.

Any incentive system can be subverted by bad will.

Igasuguse stiimulite süsteemi saab pahatahtlikkusega nurjata.

We need incentives. People have to make a living.

Meil on stiimuleid vaja. Inimesed peavad elatist teenima.

But excessive reliance on incentives

Aga liigne stiimulitele lootmine

demoralizes professional activity

põhjustab professionaalses tegevuses allakäiku

in two senses of that word.

kahes tähenduses.

It causes people who engage in that activity to lose morale

Tegijad kaotavad seeläbi võitlusvaimu

and it causes the activity itself to lose morality.

ja tegevus ise muutub ebamoraalseks.

Barack Obama said, before he was inaugurated,

Barack Obama ütles enne ametissepühitsemist:

"We must ask not just 'Is it profitable?' but 'Is it right?'"

"Me ei tohi küsida üksnes "Kas see on kasulik?" vaid "Kas nii on õige?"

And when professions are demoralized,

Kui ametialasest tegevusest kaob moraal,

everyone in them becomes dependent on -- addicted to -- incentives

muutuvad kõik sõltuvaks stiimuliteks.

and they stop asking "Is it right?"

Nad ei küsi enam: "Kas nii on õige?"

We see this in medicine.

Seda võib näha meditsiinivaldkonnas.

("Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.")

("Kuigi see ei ole tõsine, hoiame sellel silma peal, et sellest ei tekiks suurt kohtuasja.")

And we certainly see it in the world of business.

Ja loomulikult ärimaailmas.

("In order to remain competitive in today's marketplace, I'm afraid we're going to have to replace you with a sleezeball.")

("Ma kardan, et selleks, et tänapäeva turul konkurentsivõimelisena püsida, peame asendama teid lurjusega.")

("I sold my soul for about a tenth of what the damn things are going for now.")

("Ma müüsin oma hinge ainult kümnendiku eest sellest, mis nende eest praegu makstakse.")

It is obvious that this is not the way people want to do their work.

On ilmselge, et inimesed ei taha oma tööd niimoodi teha.

So what can we do?

Aga mida me siis teha võime?

A few sources of hope:

Mõned lootuskiired:

we ought to try to re-moralize work.

me peaksime moraali tööprotsessi tagasi tooma.

One way not to do it: teach more ethics courses.

Kuidas seda kindlasti mitte teha: rohkem eetikakursusi.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

There is no better way to show people that you're not serious

Parim viis näidata inimestele, et sa ei võta asja tõsiselt,

than to tie up everything you have to say about ethics

on võtta lühidalt kokku kõik, mida sul eetika kohta öelda on,

into a little package with a bow and consign it to the margins as an ethics course.

pista see karpi, siduda lehviga kinni ja müüa eetikakursuse nime all maha.

What to do instead?

Mida selle asemel teha?

One: Celebrate moral exemplars.

Üks: pea au sees moraalseid eeskujusid.

Acknowledge, when you go to law school,

Juurat õppima minnes tunnista,

that a little voice is whispering in your ear

et üks hääl sosistas sulle kõrva

about Atticus Finch.

Atticus Finchi nime.

No 10-year-old goes to law school to do mergers and acquisitions.

Mitte ükski 10-aastane ei taha minna juurat õppima, et tegelda firmade liitumiste ja hangetega.

People are inspired by moral heroes.

Moraalsed kangelased inspireerivad inimesi.

But we learn that with sophistication

Aga selgub, et koos hariduse edenemisega

comes the understanding that you can't acknowledge that you have moral heroes.

saame teada, et meil ei tohi olla moraalseid kangelasi.

Well, acknowledge them.

Tunnistage neid.

Be proud that you have them.

Olge uhked, et teil need on.

Celebrate them.

Pidage neid au sees.

And demand that the people who teach you acknowledge them and celebrate them too.

Ja nõudke, et teie õpetajad neid samuti tunnistaksid ja au sees peaksid.

That's one thing we can do.

See on üks asi, mida me saame teha.

I don't know how many of you remember this:

Ma ei tea, kui paljud teist seda mäletavad:

another moral hero, 15 years ago, Aaron Feuerstein,

15 aastat tagasi oli moraalseks kangelaseks Aaron Feuerstein,

who was the head of Malden Mills in Massachusetts --

kes oli Massachussettsis asuva Malden Millsi direktor.

they made Polartec --

Nad tootsid Polartec-kangast.

The factory burned down.

Tehas põles maha.

3,000 employees. He kept every one of them on the payroll.

3000 töötajat - ta hoidis neid kõiki palgal.

Why? Because it would have been a disaster for them

Miks? Sest neile ja tervele kogukonnale oleks olnud katastroof,

and for the community if he had let them go.

kui ta oleks nad vallandanud.

"Maybe on paper our company is worth less to Wall Street,

"Võib-olla on meie ettevõte Wall Streetil vähem väärt,

but I can tell you it's worth more. We're doing fine."

aga ma ütlen teile, et see on väärt enamat. Meil läheb hästi."

Just at this TED we heard talks from several moral heroes.

Sellel TED-konverentsil kuulsime kõnelemas mitut moraalset kangelast.

Two were particularly inspiring to me.

Kaks neist olid minu jaoks eriti inspireerivad.

One was Ray Anderson, who turned --

Üks oli Ray Anderson, kes...

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

-- turned, you know, a part of the evil empire

... kes muutis osa kurjuse riigist

into a zero-footprint, or almost zero-footprint business.

ettevõtteks, mille süsiniku jalajälg on null või peaaegu null.

Why? Because it was the right thing to do.

Miks? Sest see oli õige tegu.

And a bonus he's discovering is

Preemiaks on ta avastanud,

he's actually going to make even more money.

et teenib sellega isegi rohkem raha.

His employees are inspired by the effort.

Tema töötajaid inspireerivad need pingutused.

Why? Because there happy to be doing something that's the right thing to do.

Miks? Sest nad on õnnelikud, tehes midagi, mis on õige asi.

Yesterday we heard Willie Smits talk about re-foresting in Indonesia.

Eile kuulsime, kuidas Willie Smits rääkis metsade taastamisest Indoneesias.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

In many ways this is the perfect example.

Mitmes mõttes on see täiuslik näide.

Because it took the will to do the right thing.

Sest vaja läks tahet teha õiget asja.

God knows it took a huge amount of technical skill.

Jumal teab, et vaja läks ka tohutuid tehnilisi oskusi.

I'm boggled at how much he and his associates needed to know

Ma ei suuda ette kujutadagi, kui palju teadmisi pidi olema tal ja ta partneritel,

in order to plot this out.

et seda välja mõelda.

But most important to make it work --

Aga kõige tähtsam asi, et seda käivitada -

and he emphasized this --

ta ise rõhutas seda -

is that it took knowing the people in the communities.

oli tunda inimesi nendes kogukondades.

Unless the people you're working with are behind you,

Kui inimesed, kellega sa koos töötad, ei ole su seljataga,

this will fail.

kukub see läbi.

And there isn't a formula to tell you how to get the people behind you,

Pole olemas valemit, kuidas saada inimesi oma seljataha,

because different people in different communities

sest erinevad inimesed erinevates kogukondades

organize their lives in different ways.

korraldavad oma elu erinevalt.

So there's a lot here at TED, and at other places, to celebrate.

Nii et TED-il ja mujal on palju, mida ülistada.

And you don't have to be a mega-hero.

Sa ei pea olema mega-kangelane.

There are ordinary heroes.

On olemas ka tavalisi kangelasi.

Ordinary heroes like the janitors who are worth celebrating too.

Tavalised kangelased, nagu need koristajad, on samuti väärt au sees pidamist.

As practitioners each and every one of us should strive

Oma tegevuses peaksime me kõik püüdma

to be ordinary, if not extraordinary heroes.

olla tavalised, kui mitte ebatavalised kangelased.

As heads of organizations,

Asutuste juhtidena

we should strive to create environments

peaksime püüdma luua keskkonda,

that encourage and nurture both moral skill and moral will.

mis edendaks ja soodustaks nii moraalseid oskusi kui ka moraalset tahet.

Even the wisest and most well-meaning people

Isegi kõige targemad ja parimate kavatsustega inimesed

will give up if they have to swim against the current

loobuvad, kui nad peavad vastuvoolu ujuma

in the organizations in which they work.

neis asutustes, kus nad töötavad.

If you run an organization, you should be sure

Kui sa juhid organisatsiooni, peaksid olema kindel,

that none of the jobs -- none of the jobs --

et mitte ühelgi ametil

have job descriptions like the job descriptions of the janitors.

ei ole sellist tööjuhendit nagu neil koristajatel.

Because the truth is that

Sest tõde on see, et

any work that you do that involves interaction with other people

iga töö, mille juurde kuulub inimestega suhtlemine,

is moral work.

on moraalne töö.

And any moral work depends upon practical wisdom.

Ja iga moraalne töö sõltub praktilisest tarkusest.

And, perhaps most important,

Kõige olulisem on ehk see,

as teachers, we should strive to be the ordinary heroes,

et õpetajatena peaksime me püüdma olla tavalised kangelased,

the moral exemplars, to the people we mentor.

moraalsed eeskujud neile, keda me õpetame.

And there are a few things that we have to remember as teachers.

On mõned asjad, mida me peame õpetades meeles pidama.

One is that we are always teaching.

Esiteks see, et me õpetame kogu aeg.

Someone is always watching.

Keegi alati jälgib meid.

The camera is always on.

Kaamera on alati sisse lülitatud.

Bill Gates talked about the importance of education

Bill Gates rääkis hariduse tähtsusest

and, in particular, the model that KIPP was providing:

ja eriti eeskujust, mida pakub KIPP-haridusprogramm.

"Knowledge is power."

"Teadmised on jõud."

And he talked about a lot of the wonderful things

Ta rääkis paljudest suurepärastest asjadest,

that KIPP is doing

mida KIPP teeb,

to take inner-city kids and turn them in the direction of college.

et võtta agulilapsed ja suunata neid kolledži poole.

I want to focus on one particular thing KIPP is doing

Tahaksin pöörata tähelepanu ühele asjale, mida KIPP teeb,

that Bill didn't mention.

aga mida Bill ei maininud.

That is that they have come to the realization

Nimelt on nad jõudnud arusaamisele,

that the single most important thing kids need to learn

et kõige olulisem asi, mida lapsed peavad õppima,

is character.

on iseloomu kujundamine.

They need to learn to respect themselves.

Nad peavad õppima ennast austama.

They need to learn to respect their schoolmates.

Nad peavad õppima austama oma koolikaaslasi.

They need to learn to respect their teachers.

Nad peavad õppima austama oma õpetajaid.

And, most important, they need to learn to respect learning.

Ja, mis kõige tähtsam, nad peavad õppima austama õppimist.

That's the principle objective.

See on peamine eesmärk.

If you do that, the rest is just pretty much a coast downhill.

Kui sa seda teed, siis ülejäänu läheb juba libedalt.

And the teachers: the way you teach these things to the kids

Ja õpetajad: see, kuidas te neid asju lastele õpetate,

is by having the teachers and all the other staff embody it every minute of every day.

sõltub sellest, kas õpetajad ja muu personal kehastavad seda iga päev ja iga minut.

Obama appealed to virtue.

Obama kutsus üles voorusele.

And I think he was right.

Ja minu meelest oli tal õigus.

And the virtue I think we need above all others is practical wisdom,

Voorus, mida me ennekõike vajame, on minu arust praktiline tarkus,

because it's what allows other virtues -- honesty, kindness, courage and so on --

sest see võimaldab teistel voorustel - aususel, lahkusel, julgusel jne -

to be displayed at the right time and in the right way.

esineda õigel ajal ja õiges kohas.

He also appealed to hope.

Samuti kutsus ta üles lootusele.

Right again.

Jälle õige.

I think there is reason for hope.

Ma arvan, et lootuseks on põhjust.

I think people want to be allowed to be virtuous.

Ma arvan, et inimesed tahavad, et neil lubataks vooruslik olla.

In many ways, it's what TED is all about.

Mitmes mõttes see ongi TED-i mõte.

Wanting to do the right thing

Tahtmine teha õiget asja

in the right way

õigel viisil

for the right reasons.

ja õigetel põhjustel.

This kind of wisdom is within the grasp of each and every one of us

Selline tarkus on meist igaühele kättesaadav,

if only we start paying attention.

kui me hakkame sellele tähelepanu pöörama.

Paying attention to what we do,

Pöörama tähelepanu sellele, mida me teeme,

to how we do it,

ja kuidas me seda teeme.

and, perhaps most importantly,

Ja võib-olla kõige olulisem on see,

to the structure of the organizations within which we work,

et me pöörame tähelepanu nende asutuste struktuurile, kus me töötame,

so as to make sure that it enables us and other people to develop wisdom

tagamaks, et see võimaldab meil ja teistel inimestel arendada tarkust,

rather than having it suppressed.

selle asemel, et seda alla suruda.

Thank you very much.

Tänan teid väga.

Thank you.

Tänan.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)

Chris Anderson: You have to go and stand out here a sec.

Chris Anderson: Te peate minema veel korraks kummardama.

Barry Schwartz: Thank you very much.

Barry Schwartz: Tänan teid väga.

(Applause)

(Aplaus)