|
好人会有好报吗？那取决于好人对其善待对象的了解有多深。这是从著名的博弈论命题“囚徒困境”得出的中心结论。
|
Do nice guys ever finish first? It
depends how well they know the people they are being nice to. That is the lesson
at the heart of the well-known puzzle called the Prisoner's Dilemma.
|
|
“囚徒困境”的经典内容是这样的：两名嫌疑犯因持枪抢劫被捕，分别关在不同的牢房。警官把出路选择分别告诉两人。假如疑犯A坦白，他将被免于起诉，获得释放，而他的证词将用于在法庭上证明同伙有罪，使其被判处五年有期徒刑。
|
In its classic form, the dilemma
works like this. Two people are arrested for armed robbery and placed in
separate cells. A detective outlines the options to each separately. If alleged
robber A confesses, he will go free and his evidence will be used to convict his
buddy, who will get five years. |
|
另一方面，如果疑犯B坦白，他将获得释放，而疑犯A将被判处五年监禁。假如两人都坦白，认罪将获减刑，使每人被判三年监禁。假如两人都抵赖得一干二净，那他们将以非法拥有武器的罪名被起诉，预期将被判处六个月的监禁。
|
On the other hand, if robber B
confesses, he will go free and A will get the five years. If both confess, their
guilty pleas will win them a reduction of sentence and each will get three
years. And if neither says a word? Then they will be charged with illegal
weapons possession instead, for which they can expect six months. |
|
两个坏蛋在犯罪前曾订立攻守同盟：假如被捕，他们都将保持沉默，使两人都能得到最轻的惩罚，而不致相互指证对方有罪。但此刻身陷圄囹，面对冷峻的现实，只求自我保存的私念油然而生。疑犯A琢磨：假如我坦白了，可愚蠢的B遵守诺言，那么他固然会被判五年，但管他呢，我自由了。可是，我能相信他不会也对我这样吗？
|
Before the attempted heist, the two
villains agreed that, if arrested, they would keep quiet, which would attract
the lightest punishment they could get without implicating each other. But in
the gloom of the cell, dark thoughts set in. If I confess, A reflects, and B is
stupid enough to keep his part of the deal, he will get five years, but - hey -
I will go free. But can I trust him not to do the same to me? |
|
对“囚徒困境”进行研究的人士发现，在人们还可能再遇见的情况下，他们倾向于合作而不是背叛。比如，村里人相互关照，而大城市里的人们形同陌路。再比如，在市内公园里乱扔汉堡包包装纸的人，却万万不敢弄脏邻居家的客厅。
|
What researcherssintosthe Prisoner's
Dilemma have discovered is that people co-operate rather than betray each other
if they are likely to meet again. So villagers do each other favours while
residents of large, anonymous cities do not. Someone who thinks nothing of
dropping his hamburger wrapping in a city park would not dream of littering his
next-door neighbour's living room. |
|
这种现象很容易用进化论来解释。找得到协作者的人，比埋头单干的人更具天然优势。而在另一方面，只有蠢人才会善待不太可能回报自己的人。常规的经济学理论也十分认同这种“务实”的行为方式。以盈利为宗旨的企业，在符合其自身利益的情况下(如避免代价高昂的立法或赢得新顾客)，应当保护环境或支持当地的艺术团体。但有人认为，企业为本身的利益而履行其社会责任，无异于浪费股东的资金。
|
Evolutionary theory finds this easy
to comprehend. Those who find others they can collaborate with have a natural
advantage over solitary operators. On the other hand, people who offer kindness
to those who are un-likely to reciprocate are suckers. Conventional economic
theory favours such hard-headed behaviour too. Profit-minded companies should
protect the environment or support local arts groups if there is something in it
for them: heading off expensive environmental legislation or winning new
customers. Corporate social responsibility for its own sake is a waste of
shareholders' money. |
|
美国康乃尔(Cornell)大学管理学、经济学和公共政策教授罗伯特•法兰克(Robert
Frank)在一组论文中争辩说，生活并非如此简单。单凭经济学理论和进化论，如何解释在“囚徒困境”这样的一次性事件中，有些人会选择合作，对自己永远不会再见到的人“讲仁慈”，“讲义气”呢？为什么人们会在自己不会返回的路旁餐厅留下小费？为什么有人会把拾到的钱包交给警察，而他们并不预期会遇到失主，更无望得到酬谢呢？
|
In this selection of essays, Robert
Frank, professor of management, economics and public policy at Cornell
University, argues that life is not that straightforward. How do economic and
evolutionary theory account for people who choose to co-operate in "one-shot"
Prisoner's Dilemmas - who offer kindness or decency to those they will never
meet again? Why do people leave tips in motorway restaurants to which they will
not return, and why do they hand lost wallets to the police when they never
expect to meet the wallets' owners, much less receive rewards? |
|
法兰克教授的主张是：许多消费者以道德原则指引自己的购买行为，愿意为符合自己的道德标准的产品支付较高价格。
|
Prof Frank argues that many
consumers take a moral approach to their purchases and will pay higher prices
for products they consider ethically acceptable. The demand for dolphin-friendly
tuna is one example. |
|
法兰克教授指出，企业履行社会责任，怎么说都是会带来经济优势的。实行较高社会责任标准的企业具有成本优势，因为雇员愿意以较低的报酬为其工作。相反，对于遭到社会普遍鄙视的企业，人们要求得到额外的报酬才愿意屈尊为其工作。于是，烟草企业要请专家证人到国会委员会的听政会作证，就不得不支付高额费用，而反对吸烟的积极分子愿意义务作证，甚至自掏腰包承担旅费。法兰克教授进一步指出，华尔街的律师事务所不得不支付优厚的薪资，才能招到顶尖的毕业生，而一些为公共利益服务的事务所，则只需用少量代价就能聘用到。
|
There are, in any event, economic
advantages to corporate social responsibility, he says. Companies involved in
more socially acceptable pursuits have a cost advantage: employees will work for
them for less. On the other hand, people demand a premium to work for companies
that the rest of society holds in low esteem. So while tobacco companies have to
pay expert witnesses large fees to testify before congressional committees,
anti-smoking activists will testify for nothing - and even volunteer to pay
their own travel expenses. Wall Street law practices have to pay huge salaries
while public interest firms can get top graduates for a fraction of the price,
Prof Frank says. |
|
这些主张成立吗？不见得。大部分研究显示，消费者对于“道德购买”没有什么兴趣。英国食品分销协会(Institute
of Grocery
Distribution)在2002年完成的一项研究报告中指出：“除了自己和家人之外，极少有消费者会考虑，他们的购买决定对其他任何人或事物会产生的影响。”
|
Do these arguments stack up? Not
really. Most research shows consumers have little interest in ethical shopping.
In a 2002 study, the UK's Institute of Grocery Distribution said: "Few consumers
consider the impact of their purchase decisions on anyone or anything but
themselves or their family." |
|
(提倡道德原则的)活动人士称之为“30:3综合症”：几乎三分之一的消费者向研究人员称自己是道德购物者；但多数以保护环境、动物或低薪雇员自居的产品，其市场份额不到3%。
|
Campaigners call it the 30:3
syndrome: almost a third of consumers tell researchers they are ethical
shoppers, but most products that claim to protect the environment, animals or
low-paid employees have market shares of less than 3 per cent. |
|
曾几何时，为公共利益服务的律师薪资较低这一现象，可能成为耐人寻味的论据，但在当今印度律师愿意以低于公共服务律师的报酬做华尔街律师工作的背景下，其相关性已经不是很高了。
|
That public interest firms pay their
lawyers less might once have been an intriguing argument to pursue, but is less
relevant today when Indian lawyers are ready to do Wall Street work for wages
even the public interest types would baulk at. |
|
正如法兰克教授所承认的，个人和企业固然有不少仁义之举，但我们不能老指望个人或企业会体面行事。假如社会认为有必要使个人或企业体面行事，它必须拿出法律来规范个人或企业的行为。
|
As Prof Frank concedes, while there
are many acts of individual and corporate kindness, we cannot always rely on
people or companies to behave decently. If society thinks it important for them
to do so, it should have laws to compel them. |
|
法兰克教授在书中还提到有意思的一点。他与学生们就“囚徒困境”的各种衍生情形进行的实验证实，人们基本上还是愿意相互帮忙的，尤其是在他们事先有机会沟通的情况下。不过，有一个群体比其他群体更快地选择背叛；这个群体就是经济学专业的学生们。而且，他们学习的经济学理论越多，背叛的行为也越多。
|
One final titbit from this book.
Prof Frank's experiments with his students on variations of the Prisoner's
Dilemma confirmed that people were reasonably ready to help one another,
particularly if they had a chance to chat beforehand. One group, however, was
quicker to betray than any other: economics students. And the more they had
studied economics, the more betraying they did. |
|
译者/和风 |
|
