An appeal for fairness in society
ANYONE who has children - or, for that matter, anyone who's ever been a child - will testify that we appreciate the importance of fairness from an early age, or at least its usefulness when appealing to authority. "But that's not fair!" is one of the earliest indications that a child is developing a moral sense - even if their conception of fairness doesn't always accord with their parents' view.任何一个有孩子的人，或者，就每一个人都曾经是一个孩子而言，都会证实我们从一个很小的年纪开始就领会到了公平的重要性，或者至少是认识到了它在面对权威的时候是有用的。“这是不公平的！”说出这句话标志着孩子已经开始有道德感——即使他们关于公平的概念和他们的父母并不总是相同的。
We know that this commitment to fairness persists into adulthood. Experiments in behavioural economics demonstrate that we will punish "free riders" - those who benefit from others' efforts without contributing equally themselves - even if that means we end up worse off ourselves. To put it another way, our cognitive biases mean that we punish perceived unfairness even when that conflicts with our narrow economic interests.
我们知道这种对公平的承诺会持续到成年时期。行为经济学的实验证明了我们一定会惩罚搭便车的人，也就是那些从别人的努力中获益而自己不做出同等付出的人，即便这意味着我们会得到一个较坏的结果。换句话说，我们认知的偏见就意味着我们会特别针对感受到的不公平，即使这和我们狭义的经济利益相冲突。
And narrow is the operative word. Considered within the context of isolated transactions, such apparently self-defeating behaviour is hard to rationalise. Set within a social context, however, it makes more sense. Societies which prize fairness and egalitarianism may actually be more stable; these values appear to have been held dear by our distant ancestors (see "Inequality: Why egalitarian societies died out").
“狭义”在这是一个关键词。在孤立的场景下思考，如此明显的自我辩护是很难合理说明的。而如果设定在一个社会的背景下，这就能讲得通了。崇尚公平和平等主义的社会事实上可能会更加稳固，因为这些价值观念是从我们的老祖宗那继承下来的。（参见《不平等：为什么平等社会消失了》）
But we seem to have abandoned this emphasis on equality when it comes to the design of modern civilisation (see "Inequality: Who are the 1 per cent?"). Inequality is rife both within and between modern societies. Western societies, in particular, are profoundly skewed, by almost any measure you care to name.
但当我们开始构建现代文明的时候，似乎就抛弃了对平等的强调。（参见《不平等：谁是那百分之一》）不平等现象在现代社会是非常普遍的，不管是在一个社会系统之内还是不同社会系统之间。特别是西方社会用一切可能的方法歪曲了平等的本义。
And yet for much of the past 40 years, inequality has remained a topic of serious discussion for just a small cadre of academics. Only recently has the Occupy movement, among other developments, brought it to the forefront of public attention.
迄今为止的四十年间，不平等只是在一小群学术共同体内得到了持续的严肃的探讨。只是最近的华尔街占领运动的爆发，以及其他的一些发展，才把这个话题带到了公众的视野中。
Why? One reason, perhaps, is that over the past four decades the prevailing political and economic rhetoric, buttressed by the failure of communism, has been that inequality is inevitable. As the customary parental rejoinder to childish protestations goes: life isn't fair. There will always be a heap, and there will always be someone at the bottom of it. Against this backdrop, what now constitutes fairness is provision for the latter group to climb, and occasionally rocket, to the top.
为什么呢？一个可能理由是，在过去的四十年间，流行的政治和经济的谎言：不平等是不可避免的，得到了社会主义运动失败的佐证。这就像是一如既往的父母哄小孩的话：人生本就是不公平的。财富的积累是肯定的，有些人要处于社会底层这也是肯定的。如今可以对抗这一前见，构成公平的东西，也就是底层可以一步步爬升到，或者偶然地跃升到社会的上层。
In this way, fairness becomes a matter of equality of opportunity: "anyone can become president". Yet it is increasingly hard to accept that we are meeting even this restricted objective. Inequality has significant detrimental effects on the health of those on the lowest rungs of society (see "Inequality: Of wealth and health"), making it less likely that they will advance their station in life.
通过这种方式，“公平”的涵义也就变成了“机会公平”：任何人都有可能成为总统。可这也是我们面对的一个受限制的目标，虽然我们越来越难以接受这样的现实。不平等对那些处于社会底层的人的健康有着重大的不利影响（参见《不平等：在财富和健康意义上》），使得他们更加不可能在生活水平上有所提升。
And at the other end of the social ladder? Earlier this week the UK-based Tax Justice Network reported that a staggering $21 trillion, and maybe much more, has been stockpiled in tax havens - nearly half of it by just 92, 000 people, roughly the richest 0.001 per cent - using the best financial and legal chicanery that money can buy.
而处在社会另一端的人又怎样呢？在这周的早些时候，英国版的税收正义网报道说，有惊人的210亿美元，或者更多，被堆积在了避税天堂——其中有一半是属于9万2千人的，也就是最富有的人中的0.001%——正在享受金钱可以买到的最好的财政和法律政策。
No doubt a deeply entrenched elite has fostered this situation to protect its own interests. But it may have been allowed to become entrenched because of another set of cognitive biases. Many of us seem keenest to seek out free riders among those that have least - the indigent and dispossessed, the stateless and the homeless. Perhaps this is the so-called "just-world hypothesis" at work: the belief that the world is an orderly place in which people get their just desserts. To be rich is to have been rewarded for your skills and grit; to be poor is to be feckless and undeserving.
毫无疑问，有深厚背景的精英造成了这种情况，以保护他们的利益。不过这也可能建立在另外一系列认识偏见的基础上。我们中许多人急于想找出那些搭便车者，从那些贫苦的和无依的人中，从那些无产的和无家可归的人中。也许这就是所谓的“世界本就如此”假说在起作用：关于世界是有秩序，人们可以从中得到他们应得的好处的信念。变得富有是你拥有技能和天赋的奖励，而变得贫穷则是因为不负责任和不具资格的结果。
Even when we do consider the "1 per cent", we focus on individuals - overpaid bank bosses and under-talented celebrities being favourite targets - while the structures that support them remain untouched. Charities and lobbyists have long known about, and exploited, our propensity to be more easily swayed by individual narratives than by rational consideration of the needs of groups. Enduring reform, as opposed to opportunist retribution, is hard to enact.
即使我们考虑到了那少数富有的“百分之一”，我们却只关注于个体——过高工资的银行老板和不学无术的名人往往是易受攻击的目标——而真正起作用的社会结果则没有被触动。慈善组织和游说团体知道这事也不是一两天了，并且利用了这一情况，我们的天性使得我们倾向于被个人的叙述所打动而不是被有关于群体需要的理性思考所说服。持续的改革，相对于对机会主义者的报复，总是更能付诸实施。
But such biases can work both ways. The UK government's new proposal to "name and shame" those who embrace aggressive tax avoidance may seem a toothless gesture, but so greatly do we prize our reputations that we will go to considerable expense to protect them. So the courts of public opinion may prove more effective than those of the judicial system.
但这种偏见的作用也是双向的。英国政府要“点名羞辱”那些的明目张胆的避税者的新计划看起来很绵软无力，不过我们也在很大程度上赞赏我们自己将花费可观费用来保护这一计划的勇气。这样，公众意见的法庭现对于司法系统能更好地发挥作用。
Such points of leverage may be useful to those who want to create a more equal society. But all of us will need to bear them in mind as we continue to discuss the degrees and kinds of inequality we wish to tolerate. If we choose to redefine fairness once again, and remake our societies accordingly, we should take pains to avoid falling foul of our biases. Because it's up to us alone: there is no authority to whom we can simply wail about unfairness in the hope of restitution. We are the responsible adults now.
如此的关于使用手段的想法可能对那些想要建立一个更加平等的社会的人是有用的。但是，随着我们不断地讨论我们可以忍受的不公平的程度和种类，有一件事我们都必须牢牢记在脑子里：如果我们选择再次重新定义公平观念，并据此重塑我们的社会，我们必须忍受去除我们偏见的痛苦。因为这一点只取决于我们自己，没有一个权力机构可以让我们举着不公平的牌子去诉苦，期望赔偿。我们现在是要承担责任的成年人了。
页:
[1]