 Nazywam Agnieszka Liszka, jestem współzałożycielką wydawnictwa Curhouse Publishing. I w imieniu swoim i swojej wspólniczki chciałam was bardzo serdecznie przywitać. To jest nasze pierwsze spotkanie autorskie. Więc dziękujemy. Ono nie byłoby możliwe, gdyby nie grono partnerów. I bardzo chciałabym podziękować Uniwersytetowi Warszawskiemu, który jest naszym gospodarzem. Europejskiemu Forum Nowych Idei, który odbywa się w Sopocie, w firmie Samsung, Instytutowi Spraw Publicznych, który jest naszym partnerem. A także uczelniom, które organizują wystąpienie pana profesora Sandela we Wrocławiu, papieckiemu Wydziałowi Teologicznemu i Politechnice Wrocławskiej. Mamy też partnerów medialnych i dzisiaj muszę im podziękować. Gazeta Wyborcza Kultura Liberalna Republika nowa, dziękujemy. I jeszcze raz bardzo dziękuję, że jesteście. Oddaję głos naszemu gospodarzowi pan profesor Alojzy Nowak. Dziękuję profesor Sandel of Harvard University. Profesor Sandel, welcome. There are many extremely good universities in Poland, but we think that we are the best, so we are at the best university. There is a lot of discussion going on just now. I will be not speaking long, don't worry please. About society, about economy and about the future of the world, of Europe of America of Poland. They are at least two viewpoints. Number one is very liberal, which is underlining that there is nothing more important than invisible hand of the market. And there is another viewpoint, which is saying something different. Sometimes it's called post-cension economy. Sometimes it is said that it is behavioral economy, which is looking for another solution, or which is looking a little bit for some limitations of the market. And we are more than happy and grateful that you came to us, because in this country, in our country in Poland, we have had as well similar discussions. They are going, they are taking place at the universities, they are taking place on the radio, on TV and in the newspapers. And I think that in particular among young generation, they are divided, I don't know, in 50-50 or maybe 60-40, so you will have responsibility to work together because you maybe will change the proportion. But anyway, you will change or you will not change. Your voice is expected very much here because we know you from the publications, we know your approach, we know your methodology at least a little bit. And we know how much you are appreciated by Harvard and not Harvard students. So Professor Sandel, welcome, the floor is yours. I see movie will be Agnieszka is showing me the first movie and then Professor Sandel. So movie and the floor will be in a minute or two minutes yours. Thank you very much. What's the right thing to do? That's the question I've asked thousands of students at Harvard University in my class justice. Would it be just to torture the suspect to get the information? Do you think that a person with a bad parent pose them less? Is it alright to steal a drug that your child needs to survive? My name is Michael Sandel and over the years thousands of students have joined me for an ongoing debate about the moral decisions we face in our everyday lives. This is a course about justice and we begin with a story. Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car. Nikolaj, if you didn't think you'd get caught, would you pay your taxes? I think I should be able to bid for a baby. I'm not sure. It's a market. In a situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive. You have to do what you have to do. You have to do what you have to do. What do you say to market? I've never been in a class like this before where they kind of ask you to really think and consider the moral dilemma. I've never had such a fun class in my life, you know? We turned to the great philosophers of our past for answers. Do you think Bentham is wrong to add up the collective happiness? I don't think he's wrong, but I think murder is murder in any case. Well, then Bentham has to be wrong. If you're right, he's wrong. Okay, he's wrong. All right. Thank you. Well done. And we turned to the present to challenge the reasoning behind the moral choices we make everyday. I think that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens today and I think that discriminating based on race should always be wrong. I just want to say that white people have had their own affirmative action in this country for more than 400 years. It's called nepotism and quid pro quo. So there's nothing wrong with correcting the injustice and discrimination that's been done to black people for 400 years. Even effort depends a lot on fortunate family circumstances for which we can claim no credit. Raise your hand. Those of you here who are first in birth order. I am too by the way. Mike, I noticed you raised your hand. Taking justice was really an eye-opening experience for me. Everything that you've thought of up to that point becomes questioned, becomes challenged. The purpose of sex is one for its procreative uses and two for a unifying purpose between a man and a woman. Your beliefs are your beliefs and that's fine. But civil union is not marriage within the Catholic Church. What is the right thing to do? People have been arguing for millennia really and just still not one definite answer. And ways that makes philosophy impossible but makes it beautiful at the same time that we're still debating similar questions. And the reason they're unavoidable, is that we live some answer to these questions every day. And now I had the chance to invite you to join us as Harvard opens its classroom to the world. Thank you for that warm welcome and thank you to the vice rector for hosting us here. It's a special, this is my second visit to Poland. I was last here about six or seven years ago. It's a special privilege and an honor to be here just at the time here in Warsaw when you've been celebrating the 25th anniversary of the events of 1989 and of Solidarity. And I know that it's a time of reflection about the past 25 years, reflection on democracy, on democratic capitalism and also on the role of markets, of money and markets. And we were having some conversations earlier today and one of the questions I was asked was, here Poland has just had 25 years of tremendous success with democratic capitalism and we're now here at a time celebrating that success and here I come from America saying that there are moral limits to markets. How do those two facts fit together? And I'm not sure of the answer to that question. I think it's a good question and I hope that you will join me in thinking it through. If you look around the world today, at democracies around the world, there is a striking similarity for all their differences and that is a widespread frustration with politics and with politicians and political parties. In almost every democracy around the world, people don't really feel that politics and politicians are addressing questions that matter. I think people are frustrated rightly by what they see as a certain emptiness in the terms of public discourse. There's a hollowness to the way we argue about politics. So much of political discourse these days consists of narrow, managerial technocratic talk and when passion enters, it's usually in the form of shouting matches. People shouting past one another without really listening. We've lost the ability or so it seems to argue together and to reason together to deliberate about big questions, especially questions of ethics and values. We're not very good at debating large questions about justice in the common good and what it means to be a citizen. And I think one of the reasons for this maybe the prominence of market thinking and market reasoning is if we could outsource our moral judgments and social choices to the operation of markets. I think another reason for this emptiness is that we hesitate to engage in ethical arguments in politics because we know we live in pluralist societies. We know we disagree about moral and spiritual questions. And so there's a temptation to say let's avoid those questions in politics because we will inevitably disagree. And let's try to find a way to decide what the law should be and what economic policy should be in a way that is neutral with respect to competing moral and spiritual convictions. And so we ask democratic citizens to leave their moral and convictions outside when they enter the public square. It's understandable. But I think this impuls is also a mistake. It's a mistake because it leads to the emptiness of our politics. People want public debate, democratic debate to be about bigger things. And so today I would like to invite you to join me in a discussion of one of the big ethical questions we face in democratic societies. What should be the role of money and markets in a good society? Today there are very few things that money can't buy. If you were ever sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California if that should ever happen to you you should know that if you don't like the jail and if you have the money you can buy a prison cell upgrade for how much do you suppose? What would you guess? Anybody? $100 a day, it's about that. It's about that. $90 a night. There's a charity that tries to solve that tries to use a market mechanism to solve a pressing social problem. Each year thousands of babies are born to drug-addicted women. And so the charity tries to address this tragedy by using a cash incentive. They offer $300 to any drug-addicted woman willing to be sterilized. It's the use of a market mechanism to solve a social problem. I at larger institutions we see the rise in some countries including my own of for-profit schools, prisons and hospitals. The way we fight our wars reflects this growing reliance on market thinking. In Iraq and Afghanistan there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were US military troops. 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 in many democratic societies we've drifted almost without realizing it from having market economies to becoming market societies. The difference is this. A market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool for organizing productive activity. Market economies have brought economic growth, rising prosperity and affluence to countries around the world. And we know the success story of market reforms in Poland over the last 25 years. But a market society is different. A market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale. It's a way of life in which market values and market thinking increasingly reach in to almost every sphere of life, family life and personal relations, health, education, journalism, civic life, politics, law. And so the question is should we worry? Should we worry about this tendency? And if so, why? On what grounds? And that's the question I would like to discuss with you today. Now let's begin with a question that in some ways gets to the heart of the ethics of the market, of the law of supply and demand. Let's imagine a store that sells snow shovels for $10 apiece. And one day in the middle of winter there's a great blizzard. Everyone is buried in snow. Demand for snow shovels increases and so the shop increases the price of snow shovels from $10 to $20. Let's first see what people think by a show of hands. How many think it's unfair doubling the price of snow shovels after the snow storm? And how many people think it's fair? That's the way markets should operate. Let's first see how many people think it's unfair? Raise your hand. Doubling the price of the snow shovel. And how many think it's okay? It's a legitimate use of a market mechanism. The last time I saw a vote on this strongly pro-market was with a similar group of students in Shanghai. All right, now let's investigate. Let's hear first from those of you in the brave minority who object, who think this is unfair. On what grounds do you object? Who will get our discussion going? Put up your hand and we'll get you a microphone. Those of you who... Someone who thinks it's unfair. In the middle. Start by telling us your name. I think we have people who have microphones. Can we pass a microphone to this person here? My name is Michael. And I just think it's... When people need shovels, everybody needs shovels equally. And so to increase the price of a shovel is just not right when everybody needs a shovel to move the snow. Right, okay. So who disagrees with Michael? And can tell us why he's mistaken? Yes. My name is Igor and I disagree with him because I guess this is a quite well-known mechanism with supply and demand. And I guess it depends of the effect. What happens to you if you cannot afford to buy a device? Well, what does happen, do you assume, in this scenario? Well, there are lots of different devices. Maybe a little bit cheaper, I don't know. Maybe a little bit with the easier access. I don't think you will die with that. Like what? Like you have lots of solutions. You can borrow that from your neighbour, for example. Or maybe you can use the one you have in the basement. I don't know. You don't have to buy it if you cannot afford that. You can use the snow shovel that you conveniently already own in your basement. Well, maybe you wanted to have a new one, the harder one, I don't know. I just think it's fair. Because there are some who are willing to pay that much. If you cannot afford that, you're supposed to just look for another solution. So if it were, suppose it were not $20, but $30, that would still be okay. Well, if there is someone who wished to pay that much. Or $100? Still, there are some goods. Like with the most expensive, the more people want to get them. Yes. Well, probably that kind of device is not one of that extra luxury goods. Right. It's still legitimate operation of the market in Mexico. The demand goes up. Snow shovels can now be sold for $20 or $30. Those who can't afford one can make two in other ways. Who disagrees with Ega and has a reply in the balcony in the front? First, tell us your name. You think it's unfair? Yeah. All right, wait. All right. Tell us your name and speak directly to Ega. See if you can persuade her. My name is Philip, and I think the guy owns the shop of the shovels. Shouldn't use the environment and the weather changes to get more profit. Because before the snow came, he already had a markup on the shovels that was enough for him to survive. So I would use the environment and the weather changes just to get more money. I mean, people, if they want to survive, they would use their own hands to get the snow out of the house. So they don't have to buy the shovel. But if they can, and they always did for the 10 bucks, why should they pay right now 20? It's just, you know, he's already have a really good business going on because the snow came. All right, stay there. Ega, what do you say? Well, I guess it's all about being smart. Well, you observe that. Sorry, not like directly to you. I mean, it's okay. The question was not about being smart. It's about being fair. You can be smart in business but not fair for people and not gentle. I don't think it's not fair, actually. Well, mainly because it's totally replaceable, that kind of good. So if you cannot afford that, you can go to other shop. That's how competition works, actually. You can try to sell your shop for like for about five dollars. You may see what happened. Maybe you will sell more than I do. I think, if I may reply. Yes, go ahead and we'll give this microphone to you. I think that would be fair only if there was two shops in a town that sell servos and they would make competition out of it and the better quality or the lower price will win. If it's the only one, I think that's not fair. Okay, now, Philip, I thought maybe you would try to press your point by offering a harder example to Ega and those, the majority who say it is fair, let's shift the example slightly. What about, suppose it wasn't a snowstorm, let's say it was a flood or a hurricane or a typhoon or a tornado and the freshwater supply were unavailable for a time and the store increased, let's say that bottled water is sold for one dollar before and they increased the price of bottled water to ten dollars. How many think that would be unfair? How many think that would be okay? Now the sentiment seems to have shifted and even Ega has voted that this is unfair. Among those who have shifted when the example changed can explain why he or she shifted. What is the difference between snow shovel and bottled water? Yes, the woman sitting on the aisle. My name is Anastasia and I think in the second case human life is at stake. So in that case it would be not fair to rise the price and put some other human being in danger. So if human life is at stake the market is an inappropriate way of allocating goods? I guess so, because human life is the biggest treasure so I think in this case the rules can be changed. All right now, and what's your name? Anastasia. So Anastasia thinks that the fairness of markets changes if it's bottled water. Human life is at stake. Who disagrees? Who was a consistent defender of the market in both of these cases and can respond? Yes. Stand up and tell us your name. So my name is Kuba and my point is that the amount of water so you have to find a way to divide this water you have among these people because the only reason why you can make prices so high is because the amount of water is limited and my point is that you can't give this water to everyone so you have to find a way to somehow distribute it in this society. And when you distribute it in a market way you kind of, well, it's for certain Pareto efficient because this person Pareto efficient because this person who has bought this water and had bought it has a profit but the way you distribute it doesn't I mean well, I would defend market in this way but I would say that... But wait, let's stick to the water. The supply of water is limited. It has to be distributed in some way. Distributing it based on the market who's willing to pay the most for the water is an efficient way of distributing the water. And therefore it's fair? Well... I'm sorry, when you have a fixed amount of people who can get this water anyway I mean you can't think about this that giving this water to this certain people is more fair than giving it to this certain group of people. But when... Someone will be without water so we don't have to do that. Exactly. All right. Who disagrees and has a reply? Yes? Yeah. Yes, so my name is Konrad. I do agree with the idea of raising the price of the water. Although I do not agree with the statement that was faced here because I think that here we were supposed to divide the market, the market, Myshop around usupunąć na, about $1,now we goviem, about $1, and we goviem, about $1, because it takes emerged and that, I've had a lot of problems because each one uses WSCI, which is a lot of people and it's a lot, ale nie możemy tego zrobić. Nie możemy tego zrobić, bo my są niewyraźni, którzy są w stanie zapłacić 12 lwotek, które nie są zaangażowane do regułów. Ty myślisz, że reguł powinien wstępować i zaangażować lwotek dla osób, którzy nie wytrzymają to? Tak, w sensie, ponieważ jeśli jesteśmy limitowani w sumie w lwotek, to lwotek jest zaangażowany do regułów, który jest zaangażowany do osób, którzy nie mogą zapłacić lwotek, o czym mówimy. Dzięki za to. Kolejnik, kto znalazł, że jest niewyraźny dla kolejników, aby wytrzymać lwotek? Tak, dziewczynka. Nazywam się Anita i jestem bardzo zaangażowana z zespołu demandu dla wszystkich i w pierwszym, w drugim, dlaczego myślisz tak? Przecież wcześniej mówiłeś, że market powinien być tool, umożliwiać perspektyw dla osób i ludzie są najwyższe dobre, więc jeśli próbujemy wyrazić pieniądze i po prostu zabilować inni, nie myślą, że to jest supply and demand. Myślę, że powinniśmy distinguić between need and want. Coś, co potrzebujemy, powinieneś dla nas i coś, co chcemy. To powinieneś być w różny sposób. Tak, więc myślisz, że fundamentalne human needs są na rynku, markety nie są w porządku aby wyrazić dobre. Jeśli chodzi o akces na zdrowie czy do doktorów Myślę, że powinien być w porządku. I to dlatego, że w porządku, nie myślisz, że to jest potrzebne? Nie, powinniśmy zapłacić na to. Ale jeśli życie jest w porządku to powinien być. Bardzo dobrze, dziękuję za to. Ta dyskusja o supply i demand znalazła jedna z najważniejszych funkcjonariuszów o akcesach marketów zwłaszcza, że na pewno czy markety są w porządku na porządku to zależy na charakteru doktorów i jego rolę czy jego rolę w socjalnej inkluzji o społeczeństwie fundamentalne są inni, którzy mówią, że nie jest to dla nas, żeby dyskrypować pomiędzy doktorów marketów są wyraźne doktorów i kiedykolwiek doktorów w porządku w porządku doktorów są w porządku doktorów, którzy najważniejsze w porządku w porządku w porządku kuba tak? Tak, więc mamy te dwie czasy o supply i demand ale logiczny w porządku w porządku na porządku znalazłem to, co nie zainteresuje na porządku ale ten przykład jest najwyższym najważniejszym w porządku do zielu w tej unii teraz siedlanie są zwykle określone z akademicznym na porządku to, czy ja mówię o tym teraz, tak, myślisz, że nie byłby bardzo silnikowy On nie skończył dobrze na egzamy, ale swoich rodzajów przyjechał do rektorów i mówił, że na pewno mi ta uniwersytet potrzebuje nowego librarya. Jestem zadowolony dawać 4 milionów dolarów. Czy to wystarczy zbudować nową libraryję? Nie, on chce... On jest bardzo ciężki. 8 milionów dolarów na nową libraryję prowadziła moją córkę, czy jej oznaczała. Zobaczmy, że jesteś vice rektorem. Musisz zdecydować, co jest w porządku. Jakieś będzie tak, że to, co powinno być, jest załatwić pieniądze i zrozumieć studia. Zabij się. Jakieś nie będzie. Jesteś młodą, że jest vice rektorem. Teraz, więc większość osób teraz jest przeciwko używania marketu, aby załatwić bardzo chłodkie socjalne dolarowanie. A few people are for it. Kuba, I didn't see how you voted. What did you say? You would accept the money. Everyone benefits from the library, so it's worth it. It's worth it. All right, now let's hear from someone who objects. The majority object. Who objects and can tell us? And can tell us why? Yes. The woman sitting in the middle. Hi, my name is Anna. And my question is... Well, short-term... Short-term benefit sounds quite good. Short-term benefit, the library will be there for years and generations. Well... It might be, but what generation is going to learn from those books? My question is what in the long run? In the long run, maybe a lot of students will learn from those books. What students, if you can buy the status of a student? You think that lesser students will be learning from those books? I think they would be students just by the label, but not real students. Not real students, why? What are real students? Why is someone whose position is bought not a real student? Well, a student is someone who is supposed to be learning. Not buying the status of the student. Aha, that's interesting. So what do you do at Harvard with those cases? Luckily, I'm not in charge of these decisions. Good to know. All right, who... Who else objects? Who else thinks it's wrong? Yes, in the balcony. Hello, my name is Eva. And I believe that accepting this cash grant would not be fair, because I expect from the description of fact that it would be against the social arrangements. Wait, wait, against the social arrangements. Arrangements or general believeness of all people who try to have place at the university that only their personal skills or knowledge matters. Because I understand that only in this case we would have this question. Because in case, in our system or in your example, it would be obvious that you can either be the student of the university if you pass the exams or if your parents or family or someone else will grant certain cash to the university, it would be fair. But I believe that it's unfair if you do not agree with all candidates what are the rules of being the students at this university. Well, there are two rules, just as you described. Either you have to score very high in the exam or you have to have a very wealthy parent willing to buy a library. Okay, so if this is a case... And those rules apply to everyone. Okay, so in such description I believe it would be fair to give certain amount of places to the students who do not pass the exam but they give a grant to the university. But I would expect that all the rules are publicly announced and clear for everyone in the given society. And of course it would be a huge discussion what should be the ratio of the students who are... All right, fair enough. So the ratio might matter but if we keep the ratio of the bought places small. Let's say five a year. Then that would be all right, that would be fair. That's a tough question. If I would be the person who would take this decision I would accept this ratio. You would accept? Yes, I would accept. All right, now let's hear from someone who would not accept. I would be wrong. And who can explain why? Yes. I think it's... My name is Robert and I think it's wrong because for example let's say this test will say if this person is dumb and stupid, it will say. And if we know that there will be one dumb student and very good library. So it's unfair because we start from one dumb student and we will not take anything from this library because we know for example that he is this stupid person. Well, let's wait, wait, wait. You're being a little harsh. You're being a little bit too harsh. Maybe it's an average student. An average student who wouldn't otherwise be admitted. But who can still manage to do the work not maybe to a high standard but who can do the work and get by. And by the way, you don't know if one of your classmates was admitted under this system. They don't have to wear a sign saying... Yeah, I know. I was admitted because my parents bought the library. We don't require... So what's wrong with it? It's wrong that it's not just for the people who work hard get to this university and there's one place less for this one person who worked so hard to get there. So now we have one person who didn't work hard. Yes. And the student who worked hard and can make a profit for the country. For everybody. So would it bother you? You worked hard, you scored high in the test. For example me. No. You're already in. You're already in. So why would it bother you? This is interesting to know that somewhere somewhere sitting maybe in this room is a person who didn't score that well but whose parents gave a lot of money. Why would that bother you? Because it's not his fault first of all but it's just bad for this one person who will not get to the university. Yes. Go ahead. Okay, so my name is Agata and I'm just wondering if the question of morality to be dismissed in this case but we are still arguing that we wouldn't like to know who or maybe the person who is admitted on the grounds of donating money wouldn't want to be known for that. He would want to be blurred in the crowd and nobody knows if he's here because he's a genius or because his parents bought the library. So I guess that this proves in a way that we somehow feel that this is morally wrong to get admitted on the basis of money to the top schools. The very fact that we want to keep it quiet. We want to keep it quiet and we also want the ratio to be like 5% or 5 people in comparison to maybe 100 and if we really believe that it was fair we would say 50-50. Okay, so this is interesting. There seem to be two different objections to putting admission to the university up for sale. One objection has to do with fairness. It doesn't seem fair that those applicants who happen to have the good judgment to be born to wealthy parents get an advantage. That seems unfair. But there's a different objection which has to do with what's worthy of honor and recognition. What represents the virtue that university admission honors and rewards. This is the argument we heard that universities are for the sake of promoting and recognizing and honoring scholarly excellence and academic achievement and somehow it's at odds with that purpose for admission to be allocated in a way that's unrelated to that purpose. So what these two different reasons suggest is that when it comes to deciding when market mechanisms are appropriate and when they're not. We have to ask two questions not one. We have to ask a question is it fair to those who can't afford it? Is it fair to those people who can't afford a snow shovel? We debated that. What about those people who can't afford the expensive bottled water? Is it unfair to them? That's one objection. But what the university admission example brings out is that there is a further question and that is what is the appropriate way of valuing certain goods and social practices in this case universities. And the answer to that question seems to depend on how properly to conceive the purpose or the point or the role of the social good or social practice. That's the argument that says universities are for the sake of scholarly excellence. So the fairness argument and what we might call what's the second, a name for the second argument, a teleological argument, an argument in the name of the character of the good or purpose. Both questions have to be asked and answered before we can decide where is it appropriate to use a market. I want to put a very different kind of market mechanism. Put to you a case of the use of a cash incentive to motivate learning. So this isn't to do with the allocation of scarce goods. It's to do with the use of a cash incentive. Many schools struggle with the problem of how to motivate kids to study hard, to get good grades. Some kids come from families that emphasize teaching and learning and studying and reading from the start. Other kids don't. Some school districts with the help of economists have experimented with offering cash incentives for kids especially from disadvantaged backgrounds to study hard. Cash for good grades or high test scores. $50 for an A, $35 for a B. They've tried this in New York, in Chicago, in Washington DC, in Dallas, Texas. They have a program that offers young kids eight-year-olds $2 for each book they read. Now suppose you're the head of one of these schools. You're trying to motivate kids to achieve, to study hard. This proposal is brought to you. Let's assume it's independently funded. You don't even have to pay for it out of your own budget. How many think it would be worth a try? And how many object in principle? Let's see, first, those of you who think it's worth a try. Cash for good grades or reading books. And how many would reject it? Wouldn't even. So the majority actually reject it. Though not everyone voted this time. So those of you who would reject it, why? And what grounds? Yes. OK, good. So my name is Andrew, or if I were to translate it, because it's Yandre, but it's kind of hard to pronounce it. OK, thank you for that. So I would reject that idea for one simple reason, because I think that later on in real life there is no motivation in money for people. I mean you get paid for your job. Yeah, what about that? But it's a little bit different, because if you pay kids for reading books, for having good grades and stuff, they think that it's your duty to pay them if they do something that should be obligatory for them. And I believe that employers wouldn't be so eager to reward their employees so much for every single thing that they do more, than, say, above the standard of what they should do. So I believe it just wouldn't work in later life. So what bothers you is paying for something that should be obligatory, namely studying hard. And if you do pay them, what happens? What's the danger? What's the risk? Why not try it? If you pay them? Yeah. Well, that's pretty much what I said. To learn the kids the behavior that just won't work in later life. I see. You teach them to expect payment for everything they have to do. Yes, exactly. And then I just don't think like with market and employers who want to have control over their employees. So it would be as if I were paid a little bit more each time I walked into the classroom. Exactly. Or for every single word that you say more. Every single word. Do you know that Adam Smith and the wealth of nations propose the idea of paying professors according to the number of students who come to their lectures? Don't you think that's a good idea? Wow. I don't, by the way. I don't really. Yeah, well, you know, you need to give us your opinion on that. Because you have experience. All right. Yes, what do you think? So I see, you totally see your point. Shay, start again. So my name is Barbara. And I understand what you're saying, but I think that now we're living in a very materialistic world when children, they need a kind of incentive to do something and I think paying them for reading a book and motivating them by that way. And maybe even for a short period of time, just put incentive, I think that's a great idea. And if someone paid me for reading books, I probably read much more books. I didn't read a lot, unfortunately. Because that was my, I think that was kind of, I was looking for kind of motivation to do that. And if someone gives me like two dollars for one book to read, I would get a bit interested in it and then I would read more and more. And I think that would, might be very helpful in these years. Okay, so Barbara thinks it would help. Barbara thinks it would help. Yes, what do you say? You disagree. I want to hear from someone who disagrees with Barbara. Yes. Hello, my name is Robert. And I don't agree with this idea because I'm quite sure that when we start to give money to kids for good grades, they will try to cheat the system. So they'll cheat the system? Yes, they will start to cheat. They want, they will try to score the best grade to get money so they will focus on getting the grades, not on learning. They will start to cheat. They won't really focus on the whole aspect. They will just learn for the next test. So learning and reading will become instrumental rather than valuable in themselves. Yes. And they will also cheat from each other. They will do some notes. They will try to cheat the system. Right. If they get paid. And students in school who are trying for good grades they don't cheat now without being paid? They do, but they will cheat more. More. For example, I don't truly cheat or I try not to cheat. Those are two different statements. But if I were getting paid for good grades I would probably cheat. You would. Were you ever paid by your parents or anybody for doing well in school? Pardon? Were you ever paid by your parents? No. How many here were paid as a reward if you did well in school? Anybody? Wojtek, you really did? Wojtek is the guy who was in the film. You stand up so people can see. There's Wojtek. Your parents paid you? Właśnie. Było bardzo małe pieniądze. Na bardzo szybciej poziomie w nauce. To jest... On się wierzył na Harvard. Ale tutaj chciałem znać Wojtek. Czy masz się na dobrze załatwić dobra na Harvard? Nie, nie. Ale ja znałem ten book. Byłem ten book. Byłem ten book. Myślę, że to jest naprawdę fajne. Nie, naprawdę, naprawdę. I potem... Ja mam problemy moralny z załatwić dobra, więc ja mam to. Tak, więc jesteś załatwić. Jesteś załatwić, nawet jeśli byłeś załatwił. Nawet jeśli byłeś załatwił, to na pewno działał. Właśnie, co się stało? Bardzo kilka ludzi byli załatwił tutaj. Ale tu jest jeszcze jedna kwestia. Jakie ludzie tutaj byli znać, czy znać, czy załatwiłeś swoich dzieci, jeśli znają się dobrze, żeby ich motywować w szkole? Również. Dźwięk w ręce. Wydaje mi się, że to jest w porządku. Nie za wiele. Ja powinienem powiedzieć, co się stało z tych eksperymentów. Cieszenie... Cieszenie do dobrej kawałki nie wyglądało naprawdę do zwiększenia akademii. Ale załatwić te dzieci i te dwa dolarze, czy te kawałki, to w porządku. Ale również odleciało ich do lepszych kawałek. Ale realne pytanie jest jedna z tych, które się stało w naszym dyskusji, a to, co się zdarzymy tych dzieci później? Objeżdżanie. To jest warto identyfikować objeżdżanie, które kilka z was wyobraziło. Objeżdżanie tutaj nie wygląda na ojczyznę. Objeżdżanie tutaj wygląda na ojczyznę, o korupowanie aktywy czy socjalnej praktyki. Ojczyznę, że jeśli zaprezentujcie dzieci, o lepszych kawałek, to o lepszych kawałek jest zrobione przez pieniądze. I jeśli to jest lepsze, to wiele ludzi w porządku. Ojczyznę się, czy korupuje w porządku, w porządku o lepszych kawałek czy o lepszych kawałek, o lepszych kawałek i o lepszych kawałek. Więc to jest inna instancja, tę debatę o coś, co widzieliśmy wcześniej z kwestią ulicy uniwersyjnej. Że w porządku, czy używamy mechanizmu marketu musimy zapytać, co są aktywy i normy, że chcielibyśmy kształcić i promować, a w tym razie, chcielibyśmy ulicy ulicy. I może to być, że mechanizm marketu może ulepszyć te normy, korupować charakter o lepszych kawałek. Więc to jest przykład z pewną koncepcją o lepszych kawałek. No, w porządku, o lepszych kawałek o lepszych kawałek, jeśli ktoś znalazł ich do dnia lub znalazł ich do góry. Wydaje mi się, że te lepsze kawałki są w porządku w pewnym oprzejmie. Ale na prawdę, co mam w porządku, mój żołnierz i mój żołnierz są w porządku w porządku. Może być, że w porządku, w porządku w porządku i ciągle, nawet kiedy nie ma się ich znalazła i wydarzy się, a nie w porządku, w którym to wszystko będzie dobrze. A może się wydarzyć, że ta lepsza kawałka jest, że porządka jest, żeby w porządku w porządku znalazła, a jeśli to jest, to znalazła, tak jak w porządku znalazła. I może się znalazła w porządku, w którym w porządku znalazła tak jak w porządku znalazła w porządku znalazła. To ciężko się w porządku znalazła, ale te historie jest, że markety i markety nie są neutralne. Kiedyś zmieniające znalazły szkoły. Są tam w sonsku dzienniku Nie ma zrozumiałym problemu. Człowiek się spodziewało, żeby opuścić ich dzieci. Człowiek musiał stąd pozostać z dzieckiem, z których swoich rodziców spodziewali. A więc, pod pomocą ekonomicznych, opuszczający się do solucji, opuszczający się, dla rodziców, którzy spodziewali, żeby opuścić ich dzieci. Co się stało? Człowiek spodziewał. Człowiek spodziewał. Człowiek spodziewał. Z punktu widzenia ekonomicznego analizy, to jest paradoks. Normalnie, jeśli się spodziewała, czy spodziewała, na czymś, niewielkie ludzie, nie więcej ludzi, zrobią to. Tutaj byłbym opuszczający. Co się stało? Co się stało? Wspaniale, opuszczanie normy. Wspaniale, jak ludzie spodziewali, spodziewali. Mówili, opuszczali na nauczycielę. Człowiek spodziewał ulicy. Teraz, jak ustawili nas, opuszczały się tak, jak gdy się zapłacili, ogólnie. Teraz, spodziewała, zamknięte na focalce, unikała się, i bezpoczynanie, żeby przekonać zaangażowanie do tego praktywę. Kiedy zauważyli, co się stało, próbowały się zmieniać to, pomalowały się, ale to, w tej akcji, oznacza się, że w tym, że spowodowały się, że w razie pewnej akcji i normy, odwzorów, są obywatelne. Nie jest tak łatwe, Turn them back on again. Another study was done of donation day in Israel every year. High school students go door to door raising funds for charity. One year some economists did an experiment. They divided the students into three groups. The first group was given a short speech about the importance of the charitable causes na które stworzyli pieniądze. I stworzyli grupę na ich powstanie. Druga grupa stworzyła samą mówię i stworzyła 1% komisji na wszystkich fundach, które stworzyli. Druga grupa stworzyła samą mówię, ale stworzyła 10% komisji na wszystkie pieniądze, które stworzyli. Która grupa stworzyła największe pieniądze? Druga? Pierwsza? Druga? Po prostu trochę komisji. Pierwsza grupa stworzyła największe pieniądze. Teraz jest to prawdziwe, że marka principalna, prasowa efekty, znalazła do tego względu. Pierwsza grupa stworzyła więcej niż druga. Gdybyś zaczął spodziewać komisję, musisz się spodziewać. To stworzyło więcej. Ale pierwsza grupa stworzyła bez komisji, stworzyła więcej, nawet tych, którzy znalazły 10% komisji. Tutaj też jest anomalizm od standardu ekonomicznego analizy. Co się stało? Co się wypracuje? Wygląda się, że zrozumieć komisję zmieniła sensy aktywy. Co było moralnym i cywilnym projekciem teraz zostało jobowe. Transakcja pieniądza. I więc, kiedy pieniądze wziął aktywizm i walizm, motywacje intrynskie przynajmniej w jakiś sposób znalazły. Co jest moralnym w tych historiach? Te debaty, które mieliśmy te eksperymenty w efektach marketu i społeczności? Myślę, że jedna z konklusji, w sumie, jest, że według jakichś ekonomicznych analizów zapytają, markety nie są niebezpieczone. Ekonomiczne często zapytają, że markety są niebezpieczone w sensie, że nie utrzymają oznaczenie, oznaczenie oznaczenie oznaczenie oznaczenia. To może być prawdziwe w terenie materiałowych doktorów, jeśli znalazłaś mnie telewizja flat-screen, czy znalazłaś mnie jedna z konklusji, to będzie tak samo. Wydaje się, że telewizja nie będzie transformowała na to, jak się znalazła. Ale to samo nie może być prawdziwe w terenie nie o materiałowych doktorów, ale o zdrowia, edukacji, życie cywilnego, kulturę, rodziny, personalne relacje. W tych domaniach o tym, co się o tym cieszymy i o tym, co animuje i oznacza nasze responsy, może być oznaczenie i oznaczenie i oznaczenie i oznaczenie i oznaczenie, że może być uratowane czy korruptowane, czy zmienione, czy znalazła się oznaczenie i oznaczenie i oznaczenie logiczne i oznaczenie logiczne. Więc myślę, że są dwa konklusy i te dwa oznaczenie, które podoba z tym, z tego powodu marketów i pieniędzy, żeby zmienić oznaczenie socjalne doktorów. Jedna jest o polityce, i druga jest o ekonomii. Myślę, że oznaczenie dla polityce jest oznaczenie, co powinno być oznaczenie doktorów i pieniędzy w naszej społeczeństwie bez pomysłu tych pytań, tych etycznych pytań, nie tylko o porządku, ale także, jak warto oznaczenie socjalnych praktycznych oznaczeń, o których mówiliśmy. I te debaty będzie podobne. To będzie oznaczenie, bo oni to dotyczą z moralnych pytań, o których się zgadzimy, i zdecydowanie, co powinno być oznaczenie do marketów, nie możemy ich wynać. To jest jedna z konklusy. The second implication is about the way we do economics in recent decades. Economics has been taught and understood, as if it were a value neutral science of human behavior and social choice. But this is a mistake. It's a mistake that we can see once we recognize the importance of attitudes and norms, market attitudes and norms that matter in various domains of social life. If we take this idea seriously, we have to conceive economics, reimagine economics, not as a value neutral science, but as a branch, as a subfield of moral and political philosophy, which it once was, back with the classical economists going back from Adam Smith to Karl Marx, to John Stuart Mill, despite their ideological disagreements, they shared the idea, the assumption that economics is a branch of a larger subject moral and political philosophy. The subject matter itself was moral and political economy and so I think we need to recapture that more integrated way of understanding the subject. I'd like to end with one further example. It's about blood, whether blood should be bought and sold, blood for transfusion, or whether it should only be donated. In the 1970, a British sociologist did a study of blood, Richard Titmus was his name. He compared the system of producing the blood supply in the U.S. and in the U.K. In the U.K. there was no market in blood. It could only be donated. In the U.S. it could be either donated or bought and sold. He concluded that on economic grounds, on efficiency grounds the British system worked better. More stable supply, less tainted blood and so on. But he also made a moral argument. He said that where blood is bought and sold it will have an effect on the willingness of people to donate blood. The meaning of the altruism embodied in donation of blood will be diminished or tainted or undermined once you have a market in it. That was his argument. And it will undermine a market in blood will undermine what he called the gift relationship embodied in giving blood. His study was much debated. Including by some economists. Famous economist wrote a review, a critical review. Kenneth Arrow, one of the most distinguished American economists of his time. And he disagreed with Titmus. And at the heart of his disagreement was an interesting counter argument to the critique of markets that Titmus offered and that I've been suggesting. Arrow said altruism is a scarce good and so we should do everything we can to conserve it so that it will be available for when we really need it. He said like many economists I do not want to rely too heavily on substituting ethics for self-interest. I think it's best on the whole the requirement of ethical behavior be confined to those circumstances where the price system breaks down. We do not wish to use up recklessly the scarce resources of altruistic motivation. This was Arrow, the great economist. So his idea was that the supply of altruism, generosity and civic virtue are fixed as if by nature like the supply of fossil fuels. The more we use the less we have. And if he's right about this then it provides a powerful argument for relying as little as possible on altruism, ethics, generosity rather than markets. The idea the idea had come from an economist who gave a lecture in the 1940s what does the economist economize and his answer was ultimately love. Love is in scarce supply, altruism is in scarce supply and economics by relying on the price system draws down less quickly the scarce supply of love and virtue and altruism. Now to those who are not steeped in economics this way of thinking about generosity is strange. It ignores the possibility that our capacity for love and benevolence is not depleted with use but enlarged with practice. Think of a loving couple if over a lifetime they ask little of one another in hopes of hoarding their love. How well would they fare? Wouldn't their love deepen rather than diminish what they called upon it? Would they really do better to treat one another in more calculating fashion to conserve their love for the times when they really needed it? Similar questions can be asked about social solidarity and civic virtue. A few years ago a colleague of mine a distinguished economist at Harvard was asked to give a little talk in the memorial church at morning prayers. He reiterated this adage, this folk wisdom it's not really a postulate of economics but this conviction about the scarcity of the supply of virtue. He said we have only so much altruism in us economists like me think of altruism as a valuable and rare good that needs conserving better that we conserve it by designing a system in which people's wants will be satisfied by people being selfish so that we can save that altruism for our families, our friends and the social problems in this world that markets cannot solve. This economistic view of virtue fuels the faith in markets it propels their reach into places where they don't belong but the metaphor the metaphor is misleading. Altruism generosity solidarity and civic virtue these are not like commodities that are depleted with use they are more it seems to me more like muscles that develop and grow stronger with exercise. One of the defects of a market driven society is that it lets these virtues languish to renew our public life to strengthen and deepen democracy it seems to me we need to exercise these virtues, these muscles more strenuously. Thank you very much. Thank you professor Sandel for your great presentation speech and what is most important you came back to the roots of economy to Ricardo Smith etc please accept a small pen from Warsaw University the Czechs and and I wanted to say one more five people left but they told me that ten came so it's great success usually when I am teaching 50% is living and and one more thing I mean we had we had in the past here a few Nobel Prize winners giving lectures at Warsaw University we had advisor to Leszek Balserowicz Jeffrey Zaks but never we had so many students coming and listening for 90 minutes so it's your great success congratulations and all the best and thank you for coming and just now professor Sandel agreed to sign some books if you are wishing he only for one dollar for one book please prepare thank you