Michael Sandel: Why we shouldn't trust markets with our civic life

譯者: William Choi 審譯者: E Fan

Here's a question we need to rethink together:

現在有個問題需要我們一起反思

What should be the role of money

金錢和市場在我們的社會中

and markets in our societies?

該扮演什麼角色？

Today, there are very few things

現今，還有幾樣東西

that money can't buy.

是金錢買不到的

If you're sentenced to a jail term

如果你在加州聖巴巴拉

in Santa Barbara, California,

被判處有期徒刑

you should know

你該知道

that if you don't like the standard accommodations,

如你不喜歡標準規格的住宿設施

you can buy a prison cell upgrade.

可花錢把牢房升級

It's true. For how much, do you think?

這是真的，你們認為需要多少錢？

What would you guess?

你猜猜看？

Five hundred dollars?

500 美元？

It's not the Ritz-Carlton. It's a jail!

這可不是麗思卡爾頓飯店。 這是監獄！

Eighty-two dollars a night.

每晚 82 元

Eighty-two dollars a night.

每晚 82 元

If you go to an amusement park

如果你去遊樂園

and don't want to stand in the long lines

不想為了熱門的遊樂設施

for the popular rides,

排隊等候

there is now a solution.

現在有解決辦法了

In many theme parks, you can pay extra

在許多主題公園，你能花多點錢

to jump to the head of the line.

搶到前頭

They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets.

這叫快速通關走道或 VIP 票

And this isn't only happening in amusement parks.

這不僅發生在遊樂園

In Washington, D.C., long lines,

在華盛頓特區

往往也要大排長龍

queues sometimes form

for important Congressional hearings.

才可出席重要的國會聽證會

Now some people don't like to wait in long queues,

現在部分人不喜歡排長隊

maybe overnight, even in the rain.

也許是通宵的，甚至淋雨

So now, for lobbyists and others

所以現在那些極渴望

who are very keen to attend these hearings

參與聽證會的說客和其他人

but don't like to wait, there are companies,

又不喜歡排隊的，有一些公司

line-standing companies,

排隊公司

and you can go to them.

你可找他們

You can pay them a certain amount of money,

你只須向他們支付若干金額

they hire homeless people and others who need a job

他們就雇用一些無家可歸人士 或需要工作的人

to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes,

排隊等候，要等多久就多久

and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins,

說客只須在聽證會開始前

can take his or her place at the head of the line

取代排在前面的人

and a seat in the front of the room.

並坐在會場的前排位置

Paid line standing.

付費排隊

It's happening, the recourse to market mechanisms

在更大的舞臺上，仰賴市場機制

and market thinking and market solutions,

行銷思維和行銷解決方案

in bigger arenas.

這是正在發生的事

Take the way we fight our wars.

看看我們的作戰方式

Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan,

在伊拉克和阿富汗，你知否

there were more private military contractors on the ground

私營軍事承包商的數量

than there were U.S. military troops?

較美國軍隊人數還要多。

Now this isn't because we had a public debate

現在並非因我們曾公開辯論

about whether we wanted to outsource war

是否要將戰爭外包

to private companies,

給私人公司

but this is what has happened.

而是這已是既成事實

Over the past three decades,

過去三十多年來

we have lived through a quiet revolution.

我們度過了一場靜靜的革命

We've drifted almost without realizing it

我們幾乎難以察覺到

from having a market economy

經已由市場經濟漸漸

to becoming market societies.

快要成為市場社會

The difference is this: A market economy is a tool,

二者的分別在於：市場經濟是一種工具

a valuable and effective tool,

一種有價值和有效益的工具

for organizing productive activity,

用以組織生產活動

but a market society is a place where

但是市場社會是一處地方

almost everything is up for sale.

那裏差不多所有物件也可供出售

It's a way of life, in which market thinking

這是一種生活方式

行銷思維和市場價值開始主導

and market values begin to dominate

every aspect of life:

生活各個層面

personal relations, family life, health, education,

個人關係、家庭生活、健康、教育

politics, law, civic life.

政治、法律、公民生活

Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming

現在為什麼要擔心？ 為何要擔心我們的社會

market societies?

變成市場社會呢？

For two reasons, I think.

我認為有兩大原因

One of them has to do with inequality.

其中一個原因是不平等

The more things money can buy,

錢能買到的東西越多

the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters.

富裕程度就變得越重要

If the only thing that money determined

如果錢只能讓人決定是否

was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs,

購買遊艇、豪華假期或寶馬

then inequality wouldn't matter very much.

那麼不平等就沒那麼重要

But when money comes increasingly to govern

但當金錢越來越能夠支配

access to the essentials of the good life --

美好生活的元素--

decent health care, access to the best education,

高品質的醫療保健、最好的教育

political voice and influence in campaigns --

選舉中的政治發言權和影響力--

when money comes to govern all of those things,

當金錢支配了一切

inequality matters a great deal.

不平等就變得非常重要

And so the marketization of everything

因此，所有事物被市場化後

sharpens the sting of inequality

凸顯出不平等的問題

and its social and civic consequence.

及其社會和公民效應

That's one reason to worry.

這只是一個需要擔心的原因

There's a second reason

除了對不平等的擔心

apart from the worry about inequality,

第二個原因

and it's this:

就是

with some social goods and practices,

某些社會商品和常規

when market thinking and market values enter,

當行銷思維和市場價值介入時

they may change the meaning of those practices

或會因此改變那些常規的意義

and crowd out attitudes and norms

擠掉值得我們在意的

worth caring about.

態度和規範

I'd like to take an example

給大家舉個例子

of a controversial use of a market mechanism,

關於市場機制運用的爭議

a cash incentive, and see what you think about it.

金錢獎勵，看看你們怎麼想的

Many schools struggle with the challenge

許多學校面臨怎樣鼓勵孩子的挑戰

of motivating kids, especially kids

尤其是

from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard,

來自弱勢背景的孩子，用功讀書

to do well in school, to apply themselves.

表現良好、努力向上

Some economists have proposed a market solution:

有些經濟學家建議出一套市場解決方案

Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades

提供金錢獎勵，鼓勵孩子爭取好成績

or high test scores

或高分

or for reading books.

或閱讀書籍

They've tried this, actually.

他們也真的試過這方法

They've done some experiments

他們在美國一些主要城市

in some major American cities.

進行過實驗

In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C.,

紐約、芝加哥、華盛頓特區

they've tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A,

他們的做法是： 成續 A 等給 50 美元

35 dollars for a B.

成續 B 等給 35 美元

In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers

德州達拉斯有這樣一個計畫

eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read.

八歲學童每讀一本書就獎 2 美元

So let's see what -- Some people are in favor,

讓我們來看看 -- 有些人支持

some people are opposed to this cash incentive

有些人則反對使用錢

to motivate achievement.

鼓勵學生取得成就

Let's see what people here think about it.

讓我們來看看這裡的人的看法

Imagine that you are the head of a major school system,

假設你是一個主要學區的主管

and someone comes to you with this proposal.

有人向你提出這建議

And let's say it's a foundation. They will provide the funds.

假設是一個基金會，他們將會出錢

You don't have to take it out of your budget.

學校無須負擔費用

How many would be in favor

有多少人會贊成

and how many would be opposed to giving it a try?

又多少人會反對試一試？

Let's see by a show of hands.

透過以舉手方式表決，讓我們來看看

First, how many think it might at least be worth a try

首先，多少人認為值得一試

to see if it would work? Raise your hand.

看看是否有效？請舉手

And how many would be opposed? How many would --

有多少人反對？多少 --

So the majority here are opposed,

這裡多數人反對

but a sizable minority are in favor.

但相當一部分的少數也贊成

Let's have a discussion.

我們來討論一下

Let's start with those of you who object,

由反對的開始吧

who would rule it out even before trying.

你們甚至在嘗試之前已排除這可能

What would be your reason?

你的理由會是什麼呢？

Who will get our discussion started? Yes?

誰願意帶頭討論？你喔？

Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I'm Heike,

海克摩西：大家好，我是海克

and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation,

我認為它只會抹殺學習的內在動機

so in the respect that children, if they would like to read,

所以在這方面，如果學童喜歡讀書的話

you just take this incentive away

你只要把奬勵誘因拿走

in just paying them, so it just changes behavior.

只給錢，這樣就會改變行為

Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away.

邁可‧桑德爾：把內在的奬勵誘因拿走

What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?

內在動機是什麼，或該是什麼？

HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation

HM：內在動機嘛

should be to learn.

該是學習吧

MS: To learn. HM: To get to know the world.

MS：去學習 HM：為了認識世界

And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then?

然後如果你停止給他們錢， 會發生什麼事？

Then they stop reading?

他們會否停止閱讀？

MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors,

MS：現在讓我們看看有沒有人贊成

who thinks it's worth trying this.

誰認為值得試試

Elizabeth Loftus: I'm Elizabeth Loftus,

伊莉莎白‧羅芙特斯：我是 伊莉莎白‧羅芙特斯 (Elizabeth Loftus)

and you said worth a try, so why not try it

你說值得一試，所以為何不試試

and do the experiment and measure things?

來做個小實驗並估量一下？

MS: And measure. And what would you measure?

MS：估量。你會估量些什麼？

You'd measure how many --

你要估量有多少...

EL: How many books they read

EL：他們讀了多少本書

and how many books they continued to read

而當你不給錢後

after you stopped paying them.

又繼續讀了多少本書

MS: Oh, after you stopped paying.

MS：噢，你不再給錢以後

All right, what about that?

好，那又如何？

HM: To be frank, I just think

HM：老實說，我只認為

this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.

我無意冒犯任何人， 這是非常美式的作風

(Laughter) (Applause)

（笑聲） （掌聲）

MS: All right. What's emerged from this discussion

MS：好，這次討論

is the following question:

出現了以下問題

Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt

金錢獎勵會否侵蝕或擠掉

or crowd out the higher motivation,

或排擠更較高層面的動機

the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey,

我們希望表達的心聲

which is to learn to love to learn and to read

即是要培養他們學習和閱讀的興趣

for their own sakes?

是要為他們自己著想？

And people disagree about what the effect will be,

大家對產生什麼樣的效果持不同意見

but that seems to be the question,

但這似乎就是問題所在

that somehow a market mechanism

不知何故市場機制或金錢獎勵

or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson,

是錯誤的教導

and if it does, what will become of these children later?

如果真的錯了，學童未來會變成怎樣？

I should tell you what's happened with these experiments.

我該告訴你們這些實驗發生了什麼事情

The cash for good grades has had very mixed results,

用錢鼓勵學生取得好成績， 得出了不同的結果

for the most part has not resulted in higher grades.

大部分學生的成績不會更好

The two dollars for each book

閱讀一本書就給兩美元

did lead those kids to read more books.

確實使那些學童讀更多書

It also led them to read shorter books.

也使他們看頁數較少的書

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But the real question is,

但真正問題是

what will become of these kids later?

未來這些孩子會變成怎樣？

Will they have learned that reading is a chore,

會否認為閱讀是件苦差事

a form of piecework to be done for pay, that's the worry,

一項按件計酬的工作，那就令人擔心

or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially

或許引領他們開始閱讀時動機不正

but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake?

但日後引領他們愛上閱讀， 因興趣而讀？

Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out

現在這簡短的辯論也指出

is something that many economists overlook.

很多經濟學家忽略的地方

Economists often assume

經濟學家時常假設

that markets are inert,

市場是沒有生命的

that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange.

不會碰到或沾染進行交易的商品

Market exchange, they assume,

他們假設市場交易

doesn't change the meaning or value

不會改變要進行交易的商品

of the goods being exchanged.

其意義和價值

This may be true enough

這或者是千真萬確的

if we're talking about material goods.

如果我們談的是物質產品

If you sell me a flat screen television

如果你賣給我一部平面電視

or give me one as a gift,

或送一部給我當禮物

it will be the same good.

兩者都是同樣的產品

It will work the same either way.

兩種運作方式也一樣

But the same may not be true

共同處就並不是正確的

if we're talking about nonmaterial goods

如果我們談的是非物質產品

and social practices such as teaching and learning

社會實踐如教學和學習

or engaging together in civic life.

或共同參與公民生活

In those domains, bringing market mechanisms

在那些領域，引進市場機制

and cash incentives may undermine

和金錢獎勵或會削弱

or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes

或擠掉我們該關心的

worth caring about.

非市場價值和態度

Once we see

一旦我們了解到

that markets and commerce,

當市場和貿易

when extended beyond the material domain,

超越物質領域時

can change the character of the goods themselves,

就可改變商品本身的特性

can change the meaning of the social practices,

就可改變社會實踐的意義

as in the example of teaching and learning,

即如教學和學習的例子

we have to ask where markets belong

我們必須問，哪裡是屬於市場的

and where they don't,

哪裡不屬於市場

where they may actually undermine

哪裡事實上破壞了

values and attitudes worth caring about.

值得我們關心的價值和態度

But to have this debate,

但是透過此辯論

we have to do something we're not very good at,

我們必須去做一些不擅長的事情

and that is to reason together in public

就是一起公開理性的辯論

about the value and the meaning

我們所珍視的社會實踐

of the social practices we prize,

其價值和意義

from our bodies to family life

從我們的身體到家庭生活

to personal relations to health

到私人關係到健康

to teaching and learning to civic life.

到公民生活的學習和教學

Now these are controversial questions,

這些都是具爭議的問題

and so we tend to shrink from them.

所以我們傾向退縮

In fact, during the past three decades,

事實上過去 30 年來

when market reasoning and market thinking

當市場論據和行銷思維

have gathered force and gained prestige,

凝聚起力量且贏得到聲望

our public discourse during this time

這段期間我們的公共討論

has become hollowed out,

變得蕩然無存

empty of larger moral meaning.

缺乏更深遠的道德意義

For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions.

因為害怕爭論，我們避而不談

But once we see that markets

不過一旦我們了解到

change the character of goods,

市場會改變商品的特性

we have to debate among ourselves

我們就必須討論

these bigger questions

這些更重要的問題

about how to value goods.

怎樣給予商品評價

One of the most corrosive effects

把每樣東西標價

of putting a price on everything

其中最具腐蝕作用之一

is on commonality,

就是共通性

the sense that we are all in it together.

也就是我們全都混在一起的感覺

Against the background of rising inequality,

在不平等情況與日俱增的背景下

marketizing every aspect of life

把生活各個層面市場化

leads to a condition where those who are affluent

導致一個情況，富裕的人

and those who are of modest means

和過著節制生活的人

increasingly live separate lives.

逐漸地過著不同的生活

We live and work and shop and play

我們生活、工作、購物和娛樂

in different places.

在不同的地方

Our children go to different schools.

我們的子女就讀不同的學校

This isn't good for democracy,

這對民主毫無益處

nor is it a satisfying way to live,

也並不是令人滿意的生活方式

even for those of us who can afford

即使我們能夠花錢

to buy our way to the head of the line.

搶到前頭

Here's why.

原因如下

Democracy does not require perfect equality,

民主不須要完全平等

but what it does require

但必須要的

is that citizens share in a common life.

就是公民可享有共同的生活

What matters is that people

重要的是

of different social backgrounds

不同社會背景的人

and different walks of life

不同身分的人

encounter one another,

互相接觸

bump up against one another

在日常生活中

in the ordinary course of life,

彼此相遇

because this is what teaches us

因為這樣才教我們

to negotiate and to abide our differences.

學習協商及容忍彼此間的差異

And this is how we come to care for the common good.

這樣我們才會關心共同利益

And so, in the end, the question of markets

因此，到最後，市場問題

is not mainly an economic question.

主要並不是一項經濟問題

It's really a question of how we want to live together.

而是我們到底想怎樣一起生活的問題

Do we want a society where everything is up for sale,

我們是否想要一個所有物件 也可出售的社會

or are there certain moral and civic goods

或是否存在某些德行和公民利益

that markets do not honor

市場不重視

and money cannot buy?

而金錢買不到的？

Thank you very much.

非常感謝大家

(Applause)

（掌聲）