金钱至上的国度

    至于慈善行为，许多经济学家的理论是，世间的慷慨总是有限的，但需要帮助的人却到处都是。提供一些钱来鼓励能为整个群体提供帮助的行为，能够确保帮助到需要帮助的人。听起来很有道理。但善意是不是一种有限的资源？或者，正如桑德尔所言，“更像是肌肉，能通过训练而变得更加强壮起来”？

    有时候，采取市场原则会让善意的举动看起来更为可贵。桑德尔提到了一个案例，瑞士深山中有一个叫做沃尔芬希森的小村庄，曾经被选为核废料贮存的候选地。大多数村民在接受经济学家调查时都表示，他们接受这一决定，因为这是他们的公民义务。后来经济学家把经济因素引入了该情境，提出为每位居民提供高达8,700美元的经济补偿。就在此时，村民们原先所持的支持态度发生了重大转变。他们认为经济赔偿使得他们为大局所做的牺牲变成了赤裸裸的贿赂。

    桑德尔为我们提供了许多案例，关于金钱激励手段和其他市场力量如何掌控着我们生活的方方面面，从而创造出一个在金钱上更富有而在道德和社会凝聚力上更贫穷的世界。他在书中不断抛出同一个问题：“我们是否真的希望按照这种方式生活？” 如今这个问题常常会被问起，比如占领华尔街运动的抗议者，以及最近对高管薪酬提案进行抵制的花旗银行股东们。

    很明显，我们就像实验小白鼠一样被困在了由市场所驱动的跑轮上停不下来，我们能否选择另外一种可行的方案？桑德尔并未解答这个更具挑战性的难题。当我们社会的经济水平达到更高的高度时，我们的社会是否牺牲了过去我们所拥有的核心价值？

    在最近的经济危机发生之后，我们不仅要考虑普遍的商业化带来的利益，也应该开始考虑它的代价。要指出我们生存的这个世界有何瑕疵很简单。如果你真想改善这个世界，提一些建议是很有用的。桑德尔为我们敲响了警钟，这是他值得称赞的地方，但他也把未决的难题留给了我们：梦想找到一个藏在某处的神奇按钮，能让一切清零之后从头再来。

    译者：李玫晓/汪皓

    When it comes to acts of charity, many economists would say that there is only so much generosity to go around. In a world filled with need, offering a few bucks to encourage behavior that helps the whole group is a safe way to ensure the job gets done. Fair enough. But are good intentions a finite resource? Or are they, as Sandel suggests, "more like muscles that develop and grow stronger with exercise?"

    At times, market principles put in place to make an altruistic act look even more attractive do just the opposite. Sandel cites the case of a small village in the Swiss mountains called Wolfenschiessen that was once a candidate to house a nuclear waste site. When surveyed by economists, a majority of residents said they'd accept the site as an act of civic duty. The economists then added money to the equation, offering the residents as much as $8,700 each to accept the waste site. At this point, support for the deal plummeted among the villagers. From their perspective, the cash turned a sacrifice for the greater good into a plain old bribe.

    Sandel offers us example after example of the many ways in which financial incentives and other market forces now dictate just about every aspect of our lives, creating a world that is richer in dollars but poorer in moral and social cohesion. At each step, he poses the same question: "Do we really want to live this way?" It's a fair question that get asked a lot nowadays, by everyone from Occupy Wall Street protesters to Citigroup shareholders who recently rejected the bank's executive compensation proposal.

    Sandel doesn't address the more challenging question, whether there's a viable alternative to the market-driven hamster wheel that we're apparently trapped on. Did we as a society sacrifice whatever core values we once had as we scaled ever-higher financial heights?

    In the wake of our most recent economic crisis, it's about time we start to consider the costs of pervasive commercialization along with its benefits. Just the same, it's easy enough to point out flaws in the world we inhabit. If you want to mend that world, it's helpful to suggest what ought to go in its stead. Sandel deserves credit for sounding the alarm, but he also leaves us holding the bag, wondering if there's a reset button hiding somewhere we haven't looked.