????至于慈善行為，許多經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家的理論是，世間的慷慨總是有限的，但需要幫助的人卻到處都是。提供一些錢來鼓勵(lì)能為整個(gè)群體提供幫助的行為，能夠確保幫助到需要幫助的人。聽起來很有道理。但善意是不是一種有限的資源？或者，正如桑德爾所言，“更像是肌肉，能通過訓(xùn)練而變得更加強(qiáng)壯起來”？

????有時(shí)候，采取市場原則會(huì)讓善意的舉動(dòng)看起來更為可貴。桑德爾提到了一個(gè)案例，瑞士深山中有一個(gè)叫做沃爾芬希森的小村莊，曾經(jīng)被選為核廢料貯存的候選地。大多數(shù)村民在接受經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家調(diào)查時(shí)都表示，他們接受這一決定，因?yàn)檫@是他們的公民義務(wù)。后來經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家把經(jīng)濟(jì)因素引入了該情境，提出為每位居民提供高達(dá)8,700美元的經(jīng)濟(jì)補(bǔ)償。就在此時(shí)，村民們原先所持的支持態(tài)度發(fā)生了重大轉(zhuǎn)變。他們認(rèn)為經(jīng)濟(jì)賠償使得他們?yōu)榇缶炙龅臓奚兂闪顺嗦懵愕馁V賂。

????桑德爾為我們提供了許多案例，關(guān)于金錢激勵(lì)手段和其他市場力量如何掌控著我們生活的方方面面，從而創(chuàng)造出一個(gè)在金錢上更富有而在道德和社會(huì)凝聚力上更貧窮的世界。他在書中不斷拋出同一個(gè)問題：“我們是否真的希望按照這種方式生活？” 如今這個(gè)問題常常會(huì)被問起，比如占領(lǐng)華爾街運(yùn)動(dòng)的抗議者，以及最近對(duì)高管薪酬提案進(jìn)行抵制的花旗銀行股東們。

????很明顯，我們就像實(shí)驗(yàn)小白鼠一樣被困在了由市場所驅(qū)動(dòng)的跑輪上停不下來，我們能否選擇另外一種可行的方案？桑德爾并未解答這個(gè)更具挑戰(zhàn)性的難題。當(dāng)我們社會(huì)的經(jīng)濟(jì)水平達(dá)到更高的高度時(shí)，我們的社會(huì)是否犧牲了過去我們所擁有的核心價(jià)值？

????在最近的經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)發(fā)生之后，我們不僅要考慮普遍的商業(yè)化帶來的利益，也應(yīng)該開始考慮它的代價(jià)。要指出我們生存的這個(gè)世界有何瑕疵很簡單。如果你真想改善這個(gè)世界，提一些建議是很有用的。桑德爾為我們敲響了警鐘，這是他值得稱贊的地方，但他也把未決的難題留給了我們：夢想找到一個(gè)藏在某處的神奇按鈕，能讓一切清零之后從頭再來。

????譯者：李玫曉/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.