In almost every society around the world today, there is tremendous frustration with politics, with politicians, with political parties.

現今在世界各地，幾乎每一個社會的公民都對政治，對政客和政黨感到十分失望。

What passes for political discourse these days consists largely of partisan shouting matches, where people aren't really listening to one another but shouting past one another, or narrow, technocratic, managerial talk, which inspires no one.

近來政治論述的困境主要在於，黨人專注於相互叫囂的較量，這些人都沒有真正地傾聽彼此，只想喊得比別人大聲，還有，專業的、技術專家與管理性的會談無法喚起任何人的反思。

I think one of the reasons for the emptiness of public discourse is that we've outsourced our moral argument to markets.

我想其中一個造成政治論述空泛的原因是我們已經將我們道德上的爭論外包到市場運作。

Over the last few decades, we've drifted, almost without realizing it, from having market economies to becoming market societies.

在過去幾十年裡，我們幾乎無意識地從擁有市場經濟，逐漸趨向於成為市場化社會。

The difference is this: a market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale.

不同的地方在於：市場經濟是一個工具、一個有用且有效的工具來組織生產活動；但是市場化社會則是幾乎一切都可以待價而沽。

There was a proposal to increase attention by GPs to the diagnosis of dementia by offering fifty-five pounds for every dementia diagnosis that he or she made.

曾經有一個提案是為了提高全科醫生對失智症的注意，而讓醫生每開出一個失智症的診斷書就可以得到 55 英磅。

Or, consider the use of cash incentives in schools, offering teachers bonuses if the test scores of their students increase.

或者，也考慮在學校施行金錢獎勵，也就是如果學生的測驗成績提高了，教師可以得到額外津貼。

Why not allow a free market in votes so that people who don't much care about the outcome of elections get some value, if they choose, and sell their votes to the highest bidder?

為什麼不乾脆允許成立選票的自由市場，這樣不介意選舉結果的人可以選擇販賣他們選票給出價最高者，來得到一些好處？

Sold!

成交！

[If] the only thing money could buy were cars, vacations, and luxury yachts, inequality wouldn't matter very much.

假設金錢唯一能買到的只有汽車、觀光渡假和豪華遊艇，那麼不平等其實無關緊要。

But, where money determines access to the fundamental necessities and good things in life - health, education, living in a safe neighborhood, political voice, and influence - inequality matters a lot more than it otherwise would.

但，如果金錢可以決定是否得到基本生活必需品和任何生活美好事物，如健康、教育、生活在一個安全的社區、政治發言權和影響力，那麼不平等則比其他情況都更加要緊。

We sometimes shrink from engaging with big ethical questions in politics because we know that in pluralist societies, like ours, we will disagree.

我們有時候在政治上迴避一些重要的倫理議題是因為，我們知道在我們現在這樣的多元化社會裡意見總是分歧。

I think we need to overcome this hesitation. I think people want politics to be about big things.

我認為我們需要克服這種猶豫，我認為人們想要讓政治是用來處理重大議題。

The reason we should aim for a more ethically engaged kind of public discourse is not that it will produce unanimous agreement, but because it will make us better democratic citizens.

我們該致力於推廣一個更合乎道德的公眾論述的原因不在於它會使人民意見一致，而是因為這會讓我們成為更好的民主公民。