MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     

 

Michael Sandel 談為何我們不該將公民生活託付給市場

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

 

Photo of three lions hunting on the Serengeti.

講者:Michael Sandel

2013年6月演講,2013年10月在TEDGlobal 2013上線

 

翻譯:洪曉慧

編輯:朱學恆

簡繁轉換:洪曉慧

後製:洪曉慧

字幕影片後制:謝旻均

 

影片請按此下載

MAC及手持裝置版本請按此下載

閱讀中文字幕純文字版本

 

關於這場演講

Michael Sandel表示:過去30年來,美國已從市場經濟逐漸轉變成市場社會,可說美國公民生活的共同體驗取決於富裕程度。(三個重要例子:教育、平等、政治影響)。在演講過程及聽眾討論中,Sandel請大家誠實思考這個問題:現今民主社會中,可出售的事物是否太多?

 

關於Michael Sandel

Michael Sandel於哈佛大學教導政治哲學,探索當今一些最具爭議性的道德與政治議題。

 

為什麼要聽他演講

Michael Sandel是美國最知名的公共知識分子之一。《倫敦觀察家報》將他譽為「世上最受歡迎的老師之一」。確實,他在哈佛的講座吸引數千名學生熱烈討論現代政治生活的大議題:生命倫理學、刑求、權利與責任、我們的價值觀。Sandel的課程啟發我們思考身為公民所面臨的艱難抉擇。本課程已延伸為公共電視節目系列及其附屬網站和書籍:《正義:一場思辨之旅》。在他最新著作《錢買不到的東西》(What Money Can't Buy)中,他挑戰「市場是否道德中立」的概念。

 

「欲瞭解他的目的之重要性,」英國《衛報》書評作者對這本書評論道,「首先必須充分瞭解市場思維已成功佔據經濟領域,以及這種思維蔓延至其他領域的程度。這所學校將經濟視為與道德無關的學科,以獎勵制度代替學習動機,缺乏道德思維。Sandel的著作以平和但一針見血的方式抨擊這個想法,以及影響甚鉅的學說:經濟以『效用最大化』方式解釋所有人類行為。」

 

Michael Sandel的英語網上資料

Home: Michael Sandel at Harvard

Course: Justice with Michael Sandel

Longread: "What Isn't for Sale?" The Atlantic

 

[TED科技‧娛樂‧設計]

已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。

 

Michael Sandel 談為何我們不該將公民生活託付給市場

 

我們需要共同反思一個問題:金錢和市場在社會中應扮演什麼角色?

 

現今,金錢買不到的東西很少。如果你遭受判刑,在加州聖塔芭芭拉監獄服刑,你該知道,如果你不喜歡標準牢房,可自費升級;確實如此。你們認為得花多少錢?你猜多少?500美元?這不是麗思卡爾頓酒店,是監獄!82美元一晚,82美元一晚。如果你去遊樂園,不想為了熱門遊樂設施大排長龍,現在有個解決方案。在許多主題遊樂園中,你可以額外付費,直接跳到隊伍前方,這叫快速通道或VIP券。

 

這種現象不僅發生在遊樂園;在華盛頓特區,有時也需大排長龍才能參加重要的國會聽證會。好,有些人不喜歡在大排長龍的隊伍中枯等;也許得徹夜排隊,甚至淋雨。因此現在,針對說客及某些很想參加聽證會、但不想排隊等候的人,某種公司因應而生,即排隊公司。你可以尋求他們的協助,你可以支付某個價格,他們會雇用街友或需要工作的人擔負起排隊的任務,無論需時多久。說客們只要在聽證會開始前,取代排在隊伍前方的人,即可擁有會場前排的座位。付費排隊服務。

 

這種市場機制、市場思維和市場解決方案的需求,亦發生於較大的舞臺,例如我們作戰的方式。你們知道嗎,在伊拉克及阿富汗戰場中,傭兵的數量勝於美軍人數?好,這並非因為我們曾公開辯論是否該將戰爭外包給私人公司,但這是既成事實。

 

過去三十年,我們經歷一場寧靜革命,幾乎不曾意識到,我們已從市場經濟逐漸轉變成市場社會。其中差別在於:市場經濟是一項工具,對組織生產活動有價值且有效的工具。但在市場社會中,幾乎任何事物都可出售;這是一種生活方式。市場思維及市場價值開始主導生活每個層面:私人關係、家庭生活、健康、教育、政治、法律、公民生活。

 

好,為何擔心?我們為何擔心轉變成市場社會?我認為有兩個理由,其一與不平等有關。錢能買到的東西越多,富裕與否就越重要。如果錢只能決定是否能購買遊艇、豪華假期或BMW,不平等就不是那麼重要;但當金錢越來越能主宰美好生活要素的取得-合宜的醫療服務、頂尖教育的獲得、選舉中的政治言論及影響。當金錢完全主宰這些要素,不平等就事關重大。因此全面市場化凸顯了不平等的問題及其社會與公民效應,這是我們需要擔心的理由之一。

 

除了對不平等的憂心,還有第二個理由,那就是:某些社會利益和常規,當市場思維及市場價值介入,或許會改變這些常規的意義,排擠值得我們在意的態度和規範。

 

我想舉一個例子,關於市場機制運用上的爭議,即金錢獎勵,聽聽你們的看法。許多學校面臨如何激勵孩子的挑戰,尤其是弱勢背景的孩子;激勵他們用功讀書、表現良好、努力向上。某些經濟學家提出一個市場解決方案:提供金錢獎勵,激勵孩子取得好成績或高分,或閱讀書籍。他們確實試過這個辦法,在美國一些主要城市進行實驗,例如紐約、芝加哥、華盛頓特區。他們的做法是:A可拿50美元,B可拿35美元。德州達拉斯進行一項計畫:8歲學童每讀一本書可拿兩美元。

 

因此我們看看-有些人支持、有些人反對這種以金錢激勵學生向上的做法,我們聽聽現場聽眾的想法。假設你是某個主要學區的主管,有人向你提出這個建議;假設是基金會,他們提供資金,你不需要從預算支出。多少人贊成?多少人反對進行這項嘗試?請舉手。

 

首先,多少人認為至少值得一試,看看是否奏效?請舉手。

 

多少人反對?多少人-

 

因此大多數人反對,但贊成者也不少;我們不妨做個討論,我們從反方開始。你們甚至在嘗試之前就否決這個做法,理由為何?誰願意起頭?請說?

 

Heike Moses:大家好,我是Heike,我認為這會抹殺內在動力。因此對孩子來說,如果他們想閱讀,金錢獎勵只會剝奪這個內在動力;因此這只會改變行為。

 

Michael Sandel:剝奪內在動力。內在動力是什麼?或應該是什麼?

 

HM:嗯,內在動力應該是學習。

 

MS:學習。

 

HM:以認識這個世界。此外,如果停止金錢獎勵,會發生什麼後果?他們就此停止閱讀嗎?

 

MS:好,我們看看是否有贊成者。誰認為值得一試?

 

Elizabeth Loftus:我是Elizabeth Loftus。你提到值得一試,所以為何不試試看?進行實驗、衡量結果。

 

MS:衡量,衡量什麼?衡量有多少-

 

EL:他們讀了幾本書;停止給錢後,他們又讀了幾本書。

 

MS:喔,停止給錢後。好,這個方法如何?

 

HM:坦白說,我只是認為-無意冒犯-這非常美式作風。

 

(笑聲)(掌聲)

 

MS:好,這個討論衍生出以下問題:金錢獎勵是否會驅除、破壞或排擠更高層次的動力。我們希望傳遞的教訓,就是體認對學習的熱愛及為閱讀而閱讀。人們對其中的效果有不同意見,但這似乎正是問題所在;市場機制或金錢獎勵似乎是錯誤的學習方法。如果確實如此,這些孩子將來會如何?

 

我應該告訴你們實驗結果。以金錢激勵孩子取得好成績的效果不一,大致上不會導致更佳成績。讀一本書給兩美元確實能使孩子讀更多書,也使他們閱讀頁數較少的書。

 

(笑聲)

 

但真正問題在於,這些孩子將來會如何?他們是否會認為閱讀是件苦差事、是某種按件計酬的工作?這就是令人擔心之處。或也許最初導致他們閱讀的動機並不純正,但最後使他們愛上閱讀的樂趣?

 

好,即使這場簡短的辯論,也指出了許多經濟學家忽略之處。經濟學家通常認為市場是惰性的,不會影響或污染其中交易的商品;他們認為市場交易不會改變進行交易之商品的意義或價值。或許確實如此,如果我們指的是物質商品。如果你賣我一台平面電視,或送我一台當禮物,品質都一樣,功能也相同。但並非總是如此,如果我們指的是非物質商品和社會常規,例如教導和學習,或共同參與公民生活。將市場機制和金錢獎勵引進這些領域,或許會破壞或排擠值得我們在意的非市場價值及態度。一旦我們瞭解市場和交易超越物質領域時,可改變商品本身的特質,可改變社會常規的意義-如同教導和學習的例子-我們必須思考市場適用於何處、不適用於何處、用於何處可能會破壞值得我們在意的價值與態度。但進行這個辯論,我們必須做某件我們不太擅長的事,就是公開討論我們珍惜的社會常規之價值與意義。從我們的身體到家庭生活,從私人關係到健康,從教導、學習到公民生活。

 

這些都是爭議性問題,因此我們傾向於逃避。事實上,過去30年來,市場論證和市場思維已凝聚力量,並受到尊崇。這段期間,我們的公共討論已空洞化,缺乏更遠大的道德意義。因為恐懼爭論,我們逃避這些問題。但一旦我們瞭解市場將改變商品特質,我們必須共同討論這些更遠大的問題,關於如何評估商品的價值。

 

將所有事物標價最具破壞性的影響之一就是我們的共通性,即同舟共濟的感覺。在不平等情況與日俱增的背景下,將所有生活層面市場化,導致富裕者和低收入者逐漸分道揚鑣。我們生活、工作、購物、娛樂都在不同地方,孩子進入不同學校就讀。

 

這對民主毫無益處,也並非令人滿意的生活方式,即使對我們這些負擔的起排隊服務費用的人來說。原因如下:民主不需要完全平等,但確實需要公民共同分享生活。重要的是,擁有不同社會背景、從事不同職業的人互相接觸,在日常生活中彼此相遇,因為這樣我們才能學習協商及包容差異,這樣我們才會關心共同利益。

 

因此到頭來,市場問題主要並非經濟問題,而是我們希望如何共同生活的問題。我們是否想要一個任何事物都待價而沽的社會,或是否存在某種道德及公民利益,市場不重視,但無法以金錢買到?

 

十分感謝。

 

(掌聲)

 

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this talk

In the past three decades, says Michael Sandel, the US has drifted from a market economy to a market society; it's fair to say that an American's experience of shared civic life depends on how much money they have. (Three key examples: access to education, access to justice, political influence.) In a talk and audience discussion, Sandel asks us to think honestly on this question: In our current democracy, is too much for sale?
 
About Michael Sandel
Michael Sandel teaches political philosophy at Harvard, exploring some of the most hotly contested moral and political issues of our time.
 
About the transcript
Here's a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?
 
Today, there are very few things that money can't buy. If you're sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California, you should know that if you don't like the standard accommodations, you can buy a prison cell upgrade. It's true. For how much, do you think? What would you guess? Five hundred dollars? It's not the Ritz-Carlton. It's a jail! Eighty-two dollars a night. Eighty-two dollars a night. If you go to an amusement park and don't want to stand in the long lines for the popular rides, there is now a solution. In many theme parks, you can pay extra to jump to the head of the line. They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets.
 
And this isn't only happening in amusement parks. In Washington, D.C., long lines, queues sometimes form for important Congressional hearings. Now some people don't like to wait in long queues, maybe overnight, even in the rain. So now, for lobbyists and others who are very keen to attend these hearings but don't like to wait, there are companies, line-standing companies, and you can go to them. You can pay them a certain amount of money, they hire homeless people and others who need a job to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes, and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins, can take his or her place at the head of the line and a seat in the front of the room. Paid line standing.
 
It's happening, the recourse to market mechanisms and market thinking and market solutions, in bigger arenas. Take the way we fight our wars. Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were U.S. military troops? Now this isn't because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies, but this is what has happened.
 
Over the past three decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution. We've drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies. The difference is this: A market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool, for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale. It's a way of life, in which market thinking and market values begin to dominate every aspect of life: personal relations, family life, health, education, politics, law, civic life.
 
Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming market societies? For two reasons, I think. One of them has to do with inequality. The more things money can buy, the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters. If the only thing that money determined was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs, then inequality wouldn't matter very much. But when money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life -- decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns -- when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal. And so the marketization of everything sharpens the sting of inequality and its social and civic consequence. That's one reason to worry.
 
There's a second reason apart from the worry about inequality, and it's this: with some social goods and practices, when market thinking and market values enter, they may change the meaning of those practices and crowd out attitudes and norms worth caring about.
 
I'd like to take an example of a controversial use of a market mechanism, a cash incentive, and see what you think about it. Many schools struggle with the challenge of motivating kids, especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard, to do well in school, to apply themselves. Some economists have proposed a market solution: Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades or high test scores or for reading books. They've tried this, actually. They've done some experiments in some major American cities. In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C., they've tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A, 35 dollars for a B. In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read.
 
So let's see what -- Some people are in favor, some people are opposed to this cash incentive to motivate achievement. Let's see what people here think about it. Imagine that you are the head of a major school system, and someone comes to you with this proposal. And let's say it's a foundation. They will provide the funds. You don't have to take it out of your budget. How many would be in favor and how many would be opposed to giving it a try? Let's see by a show of hands.
 
First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
 
And how many would be opposed? How many would --
 
So the majority here are opposed, but a sizable minority are in favor. Let's have a discussion. Let's start with those of you who object, who would rule it out even before trying. What would be your reason? Who will get our discussion started? Yes?
 
Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I'm Heike, and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation, so in the respect that children, if they would like to read, you just take this incentive away in just paying them, so it just changes behavior. Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away.
 
What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
 
HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn.
 
MS: To learn. HM: To get to know the world. And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then? Then they stop reading?
 
MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors, who thinks it's worth trying this.
 
Elizabeth Loftus: I'm Elizabeth Loftus, and you said worth a try, so why not try it and do the experiment and measure things? MS: And measure. And what would you measure? You'd measure how many -- EL: How many books they read and how many books they continued to read after you stopped paying them.
 
MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
 
HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
 
(Laughter) (Applause)
 
MS: All right. What's emerged from this discussion is the following question: Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt or crowd out the higher motivation, the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey, which is to learn to love to learn and to read for their own sakes? And people disagree about what the effect will be, but that seems to be the question, that somehow a market mechanism or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson, and if it does, what will become of these children later?
 
I should tell you what's happened with these experiments. The cash for good grades has had very mixed results, for the most part has not resulted in higher grades. The two dollars for each book did lead those kids to read more books. It also led them to read shorter books.
 
(Laughter)
 
But the real question is, what will become of these kids later? Will they have learned that reading is a chore, a form of piecework to be done for pay, that's the worry, or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake?
 
Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out is something that many economists overlook. Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange. Market exchange, they assume, doesn't change the meaning or value of the goods being exchanged. This may be true enough if we're talking about material goods. If you sell me a flat screen television or give me one as a gift, it will be the same good. It will work the same either way. But the same may not be true if we're talking about nonmaterial goods and social practices such as teaching and learning or engaging together in civic life. In those domains, bringing market mechanisms and cash incentives may undermine or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes worth caring about. Once we see that markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves, can change the meaning of the social practices, as in the example of teaching and learning, we have to ask where markets belong and where they don't, where they may actually undermine values and attitudes worth caring about. But to have this debate, we have to do something we're not very good at, and that is to reason together in public about the value and the meaning of the social practices we prize, from our bodies to family life to personal relations to health to teaching and learning to civic life.
 
Now these are controversial questions, and so we tend to shrink from them. In fact, during the past three decades, when market reasoning and market thinking have gathered force and gained prestige, our public discourse during this time has become hollowed out, empty of larger moral meaning. For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions. But once we see that markets change the character of goods, we have to debate among ourselves these bigger questions about how to value goods.
 
One of the most corrosive effects of putting a price on everything is on commonality, the sense that we are all in it together. Against the background of rising inequality, marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools.
 
This isn't good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line. Here's why. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different social backgrounds and different walks of life encounter one another, bump up against one another in the ordinary course of life, because this is what teaches us to negotiate and to abide our differences. And this is how we come to care for the common good.
 
And so, in the end, the question of markets is not mainly an economic question. It's really a question of how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?
 
Thank you very much.
 
(Applause)

留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入2 + 6 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

目前暫無評論,快來留言吧!

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: