金融時報:金錢能買什么？

金錢能買什么？

賣"黃牛票"合理嗎？黑幫老大冠名贊助階梯教室可以嗎？為什么即使自愿的奴隸制也不可接受呢？FT評論員約翰·凱(John Kay)從桑德爾的《金錢不能買什么》出發(fā)，解釋“金錢可以買什么”。

測試中可能遇到的詞匯和知識：

EasyJet 易捷航空

surrogate motherhoodv代孕母親

Al Capone 艾爾·卡彭，上世紀20年代的芝加哥黑手黨教父。其黨徒以黑風(fēng)衣下藏沖鋒槍的形象著稱，他火并了無數(shù)黑幫，打通政界和司法界，控制芝加哥的黃賭毒產(chǎn)業(yè)，禁酒法讓他大發(fā)橫財，聯(lián)邦政府直到1931年才以逃稅指控將其逮捕。由于其"劫富濟貧"行為和智慧的犯罪方式，至今仍有人崇敬。有多部影片講述卡彭的故事。

ticket scalping 黃牛黨，黃牛票

aesthetically[i?s'θet?k?l?] adj.審美地，美學(xué)觀點上地

toddler ['t?dl?] n.學(xué)步的小孩

polymath ['p?l?mæθ] n.博學(xué)的人

The limits of what money can buy (725 words)

The easyJet flight to London was only slightly delayed by snow. Still, I took advantage of the opportunity to push ahead of other impatient passengers and settle down to read the recent book by American philosopher Michael Sandel, What Money Can’t Buy. I had paid easyJet €12 for the privilege of speedy boarding.

Sandel queries the legitimacy of such transactions. In a market economy, should there be things that money just cannot buy? Should there be markets for sperm, surrogate motherhood or transplant organs? Should lobbyists be able to pay people to stand in line for them to secure admission to popular congressional hearings? Should we try to outlaw prostitution? Is it proper to require students to attend classes in the Al Capone lecture theatre if Capone paid generously for the naming rights? Should these students be allowed to tattoo their forehead with “Visit New Zealand” in return for a contribution to their tuition fees?

Even the most committed believer in the free market is reluctant to agree that contracts of slavery should be legally enforceable. But the purchase of a human kidney from a poor donor is presumptively advantageous to both parties and harmful to no one else. Where, and why, does the argument that voluntary transactions are mutually beneficial break down?

Sandel offers an answer. “When we decide that certain goods may be bought and sold, we decide, at least implicitly, that it is appropriate to treat them as commodities, as instruments of profit and use. But not all goods are properly valued in this way.”

While most people would agree with that proposition, it does not take us very far. What criteria determine which goods are properly valued in this way and which not? Sandel provides an intriguing list of the many kinds of transaction that most people find distasteful, but not a principled rationale against which to test our intuitions. Should easyJet offer me speedy boarding, and should I take advantage of it?

The reasons for distaste seem to fall into a few broad categories. Probably we do not believe the contract of enslavement is truly voluntary. The prospective slave is bemused, or in a hurry, or a state of desperation. But similar arguments would strike down a lot of transactions. Many widely distributed financial products would not be bought by anyone who understood them. And how often have you read the licence conditions on your new software?

The slave contract is unacceptable for the more fundamental reason that it affronts human dignity. So does the sale of transplant organs and the forehead tattoo. These deals violate Immanuel Kant’s maxim that we treat individuals as ends not instruments. But there are obvious grey areas. What of the paid queue standers? And why do we think ticket scalping is more offensive when the tickets provide free entry to a papal mass than paid admission to a Bruce Springsteen concert?

Other transactions disturb social solidarity. The popularity of Britain’s National Health Service seems to rest on a perception that in illness “we are all in this together”. So it is best if we do not see paying patients being wheeled ahead of us into the operating theatre from their private rooms.

Other transactions are aesthetically unpleasant. We might be able to stomach the Al Capone lecture theatre but draw the line at placing a large illuminated statue of Capone in the foyer. We would prefer not to have our fire attended by an engine that says Kentucky Fried Chicken on the side, even if the hoses it brings extinguish our fire. For the same reasons, we do not want to see billboards beside country roads or have the street where we live renamed Coca-Cola Boulevard.

Sadly, my transaction with easyJet does not even meet the criterion of doing no harm to other people. I strode past more than one harassed family, toddlers in tow, who would experience slower boarding as a result of my €12 investment. But a family weekending in Nice does not really have a strong claim on my sympathy. I consoled myself with an observation from American founding father and polymath Benjamin Franklin: “So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.”

請根據(jù)你所讀到的文章內(nèi)容，完成以下自測題目：

1.What is the writer's attitude towards Prof. Sandel's book?

A. The book was just brilliant.

B. No one can answer the queries he posed about money and transactions.

C. He failed to provide principled rationale.

D. The book cannot be properly valued by money.

答案(1)

2.What is the fundamental reason that the slave contract is unacceptable?

A. It is not enforceable.

B. It could not be really voluntary.

C. It affronts human dignity.

D. Its signee must have signed it in desperation.

答案(2)

3.The writer aprroves which of the following?

A. Britain's National Health Service.

B. "Al Capone lecture theatre".

C. The street where he lives renamed Coca-Cola Boulevard.

D. Many widely distributed financial products.

答案(3)

4.What does the citation of Benjamin Franklin in the end imply?

A. The writer was reading about him on the flight.

B. Franklin would be happy to see speedy boarding service.

C. Speedy boarding met the criterion of doing no harm to others.

D. The writer was actually feeling a little bit guilty about it.

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：C.He failed to provide principled rationale.

解釋：作者認為他提出的問題很有意義，但是他給出的解答“不是所有商品都可以被合理地定價”缺乏嚴謹?shù)耐评?。ABD作者并未表達。

(2) 答案：C.It affronts human dignity.

解釋：A不正確。BD都可算是“自賣為奴的契約無效”的理由，但是作者說了，如果以B為理由反對 這種交易，那么一些金融交易（投資者后來發(fā)現(xiàn)自己被誤導(dǎo)了）也可算作無效了，因此這個理由不是最有力的，不是最根本的。 C才是根本理由。斯皮爾伯格的《林肯》著重講的就是林肯推動眾議院通過憲法第十三修正案廢除奴隸制的故事。

第十三修正案：“第一款：在合眾國境內(nèi)或?qū)俸媳妵茌牭娜魏蔚胤?，不準有奴隸制或強制勞役存在，惟用于業(yè)經(jīng)定罪的罪犯作為懲罰除外。第二款：國會有權(quán)以適當立法實施本條規(guī)定。”

(3) 答案：A.Britain's National Health Service.

解釋：2012倫敦奧運開幕式上，600位醫(yī)生和護士走上運動場，接受全場觀眾的歡呼。 二戰(zhàn)后開始實施的英國全民醫(yī)療服務(wù)制度，被英國人認為“如同工業(yè)革命、莎士比亞、哈利·波特一樣，成為國家軟實力的象征”。 BC是作者明確表示不會喜歡的。對于D，作者說would not be bought by anyone who understood them.

(4) 答案：D.The writer was actually feeling a little bit guilty about it.

解釋：AB不正確，C與事實相反。作者說，他多交了12塊錢從而可以“插隊”，比很多家庭和學(xué)步的小孩早上飛機， 他只好借用富蘭克林的名言console自己： “做一個有理性的生物原是這樣方便，因為理性能使人找到或是制造理由去干人心里想干的事。”

你覺得富蘭克林會不會喜歡快捷登機服務(wù)？