The first thing I want to do is say thank you to all of you. The second thing I want to do is introduce my co-author and dear friend and co-teacher. Ken and I have been working together for almost 40 years. That's Ken Sharpe over there.
Prva stvar koju želim napraviti jest zahvaliti se svima vama. Druga stvar koju želim napraviti jest predstaviti vam mog ko-autora i dragog prijatelja i ko-učitelja. Ken i ja radimo zajedno gotovo 40 godina. Ono tamo je Ken Sharpe.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)
So there is among many people -- certainly me and most of the people I talk to -- a kind of collective dissatisfaction with the way things are working, with the way our institutions run. Our kids' teachers seem to be failing them. Our doctors don't know who the hell we are, and they don't have enough time for us. We certainly can't trust the bankers, and we certainly can't trust the brokers. They almost brought the entire financial system down. And even as we do our own work, all too often, we find ourselves having to choose between doing what we think is the right thing and doing the expected thing, or the required thing, or the profitable thing. So everywhere we look, pretty much across the board, we worry that the people we depend on don't really have our interests at heart. Or if they do have our interests at heart, we worry that they don't know us well enough to figure out what they need to do in order to allow us to secure those interests. They don't understand us. They don't have the time to get to know us.
Među mnogim ljudima -- svakako sa mnom i ljudima s kojima razgovaram -- postoji neka vrsta kolektivnog nezadovoljstva načinom na koji stvari funkcioniraju, s načinom na koji naše institucije rade. Čini se kako učitelji znaju iznevjeriti našu djecu. Naši doktori nemaju pojma tko smo, i nemaju dovoljno vremena za nas. Svakako ne možemo vjerovati našim bankarima, i sigurno ne možemo vjerovati brokerima. Oni su gotovo slomili cijeli financijski sustav. I čak kada radimo naš posao, prečesto, se nalazimo u situacijama gdje moramo birati između onoga što mislimo da je pravilno i onoga što se očekuje, ili traži, ili onoga što je profitabilno. Gdje god pogledamo, skoro u svim sferama, brinemo se da ljudi o kojima ovisimo nemaju stvarni interes za nas. Ili ako imaju interes, brinemo se da nas ne poznaju dovoljno kako bi spoznali što trebaju napraviti da bi nam dozvolili da osiguramo svoje interese. Oni nas ne razumiju. Nemaju vremena upoznati nas.
There are two kinds of responses that we make to this sort of general dissatisfaction. If things aren't going right, the first response is: let's make more rules, let's set up a set of detailed procedures to make sure that people will do the right thing. Give teachers scripts to follow in the classroom, so even if they don't know what they're doing and don't care about the welfare of our kids, as long as they follow the scripts, our kids will get educated. Give judges a list of mandatory sentences to impose for crimes, so that you don't need to rely on judges using their judgment. Instead, all they have to do is look up on the list what kind of sentence goes with what kind of crime. Impose limits on what credit card companies can charge in interest and on what they can charge in fees. More and more rules to protect us against an indifferent, uncaring set of institutions we have to deal with.
Postoje dvije vrste odgovora koje imamo na ovu vrstu općeg nezadovoljstva. Ako stvari ne idu u dobrom smjeru prvi odgovor je: napravimo još pravila, uspostavimo niz detaljnih procedura kako bismo bili sigurni da će ljudi napraviti pravu stvar. Dajte učiteljima skripte koje će pratiti u učionicama, tako kada i ne znaju što rade i ne brinu o dobrobiti naše djece, dokle god prate skripte, naša djeca će se obrazovati. Dajte sucima listu obveznih kazni koje će primjeniti na kriminal, kako se ne bi pouzdali u njihove procjene. Umjesto toga, sve što trebaju napraviti jest pogledati na listu kakva vrsta kazne ide s kakvom vrstom kriminala. Uvedite ograničenja koliko kompanije kreditnih kartica mogu zaračunavati kamata i na što mogu zaračunavati svoje provizije. Sve više pravila kako bi nas zaštitila od ravnodušnog, nezainteresiranog niza institucija s kojima se moramo baviti.
Or -- or maybe and -- in addition to rules, let's see if we can come up with some really clever incentives so that, even if the people we deal with don't particularly want to serve our interests, it is in their interest to serve our interest -- the magic incentives that will get people to do the right thing even out of pure selfishness. So we offer teachers bonuses if the kids they teach score passing grades on these big test scores that are used to evaluate the quality of school systems.
Ili -- ili možda i -- u dodatku na pravila, idemo vidjeti možemo li osmisliti s nekim stvarno pametnim poticajima tako da, čak i ako ljudi s kojima radimo koji ne žele posebno brinuti o našem interesu, da bude u njihovom interesu da se brinu o našem interesu -- magični poticaj koji će potaknuti ljude da čine pravu stvar čak i iz čiste sebičnosti. Tako ponudimo učiteljima bonuse ako djeca koju uče dobe prolazne ocjene na tim velikim testovima koji se koriste za procjenu kvalitete školskog sustava.
Rules and incentives -- "sticks" and "carrots." We passed a bunch of rules to regulate the financial industry in response to the recent collapse. There's the Dodd-Frank Act, there's the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that is temporarily being headed through the backdoor by Elizabeth Warren. Maybe these rules will actually improve the way these financial services companies behave. We'll see. In addition, we are struggling to find some way to create incentives for people in the financial services industry that will have them more interested in serving the long-term interests even of their own companies, rather than securing short-term profits. So if we find just the right incentives, they'll do the right thing -- as I said -- selfishly, and if we come up with the right rules and regulations, they won't drive us all over a cliff. And Ken [Sharpe] and I certainly know that you need to reign in the bankers. If there is a lesson to be learned from the financial collapse it is that.
Pravila i poticaji -- štap i mrkva. Usvojili smo niz pravila za reguliranje financijske industrije kao odgovor na nedavni kolaps. Postoji Dodd-Frank zakon, postoji nova Agencija za financijsku zaštitu potrošača koju privremeno pokušava progurati na zadnja vrata Elizabeth Warren. Možda će ta pravila stvarno poboljšati način na koji se ponašaju te kompanije za financijske usluge. Vidjeti ćemo. Pored toga, borimo se da pronađemo način za stvaranje poticaja tim ljudima iz financijske industrije koji će ih zainteresirati da služe dugoročnim interesima čak i njihovih kompanija, umjesto da osiguravaju kratkoročne profite. Dakle ako pronađemo prave poticaje, oni će napraviti pravu stvar -- kao što sam rekao -- sebično, i ako osmislimo odgovarajuća pravila i propise, neće nas sve gurnuti preko ivice ponora. I Ken [Sharpe] i ja svakako znamo da morate zauzdati bankare. Ako postoji lekcija koja se mora naučiti iz financijskog kolapsa onda je to ta.
But what we believe, and what we argue in the book, is that there is no set of rules, no matter how detailed, no matter how specific, no matter how carefully monitored and enforced, there is no set of rules that will get us what we need. Why? Because bankers are smart people. And, like water, they will find cracks in any set of rules. You design a set of rules that will make sure that the particular reason why the financial system "almost-collapse" can't happen again. It is naive beyond description to think that having blocked this source of financial collapse, you have blocked all possible sources of financial collapse. So it's just a question of waiting for the next one and then marveling at how we could have been so stupid as not to protect ourselves against that.
Ali ono što mi vjerujemo, i ono što argumentiramo u knjizi, jest da ne postoji niz pravila, bez obzira koliko detaljna bila, bez obzira koliko specifična, bez obzira koliko pažljivo budu praćena i nametnuta, ne postoji set pravila koji će nam dati ono što trebamo. Zašto? Jer su bankari pametni ljudi. I, poput vode, oni će pronaći pukotine u svakom nizu pravila. Trebate dizajnirati niz pravila koja će osigurati da se partikularni razlog zbog kojeg je financijski sustav skoro propao ne može dogoditi opet. Neopisivo je naivno misliti da ako ste blokirali taj uzrok financijskog kraha, da ste blokirali sve moguće izvore financijskog kraha. Dakle to je jednostavno pitanje čekanja slijedećeg i onda ćemo se ponovno pitati kako smo mogli biti tako glupi da se nismo zaštitili od toga.
What we desperately need, beyond, or along with, better rules and reasonably smart incentives, is we need virtue. We need character. We need people who want to do the right thing. And in particular, the virtue that we need most of all is the virtue that Aristotle called "practical wisdom." Practical wisdom is the moral will to do the right thing and the moral skill to figure out what the right thing is. So Aristotle was very interested in watching how the craftsmen around him worked. And he was impressed at how they would improvise novel solutions to novel problems -- problems that they hadn't anticipated. So one example is he sees these stonemasons working on the Isle of Lesbos, and they need to measure out round columns. Well if you think about it, it's really hard to measure out round columns using a ruler. So what do they do? They fashion a novel solution to the problem. They created a ruler that bends, what we would call these days a tape measure -- a flexible rule, a rule that bends. And Aristotle said, "Hah, they appreciated that sometimes to design rounded columns, you need to bend the rule." And Aristotle said often in dealing with other people, we need to bend the rules.
Ono što mi očajnički trebamo, više, ili uz, bolja pravila i pametnije poticaje, jest da nam je potrebna vrlina, potreban nam je karakter, potrebni su nam ljudi koji žele napraviti pravu stvar. A posebno, vrlina koja nam treba više od svih jest vrlina koju Aristotel naziva praktična mudrost. Praktična mudrost jest moralno htjenje da se napravi prava stvar i moralna vještina kako bi se osmislilo što prava stvar jest. Aristotel je bio jako zainteresiran promatrati kako zanatlije oko njega rade. I bio je impresioniran načinom na koji improviziraju nova rješenja na nove probleme -- probleme koje nisu anticipirali. Jedan je primjer gdje vidi te klesare koji rade na otoku Lesbos, i oni moraju izmjeriti okrugle stupove. Ako razmislite o tome, stvarno je teško izmjeriti okrugle stupove koristeći ravnalo. Dakle, što su oni napravili? Osmislili su novo rješenje problema. Kreirali su ravnalo koje se savija, ono što bismo danas nazivali krojačkim metrom -- fleksibilno pravilo, pravilo koje se savija. I Aristotel je rekao, oni su procijenili da ponekad kako bi kreirao okrugle stupove, moraš saviti pravila. I Aristotel je rekao kako često dok radimo s ljudima, moramo saviti pravila.
Dealing with other people demands a kind of flexibility that no set of rules can encompass. Wise people know when and how to bend the rules. Wise people know how to improvise. The way my co-author , Ken, and I talk about it, they are kind of like jazz musicians. The rules are like the notes on the page, and that gets you started, but then you dance around the notes on the page, coming up with just the right combination for this particular moment with this particular set of fellow players. So for Aristotle, the kind of rule-bending, rule exception-finding and improvisation that you see in skilled craftsmen is exactly what you need to be a skilled moral craftsman. And in interactions with people, almost all the time, it is this kind of flexibility that is required. A wise person knows when to bend the rules. A wise person knows when to improvise. And most important, a wise person does this improvising and rule-bending in the service of the right aims. If you are a rule-bender and an improviser mostly to serve yourself, what you get is ruthless manipulation of other people. So it matters that you do this wise practice in the service of others and not in the service of yourself. And so the will to do the right thing is just as important as the moral skill of improvisation and exception-finding. Together they comprise practical wisdom, which Aristotle thought was the master virtue.
Rad s drugim ljudima zahtjeva neku vrstu fleksibilnosti koju niti jedan niz pravila ne može obuhvatiti. Mudri ljudi znaju kada i kako saviti pravila. Mudri ljudi znaju kako improvizirati. Način na koji moj ko-autor, Ken, i ja to vidimo, jest da su oni neka vrsta jazz muzičara; pravila su poput nota na stranici, i ona vas pokrenu, ali onda plešete oko nota na stranici, dolazeći s pravom kombinacijom za taj posebni trenutak s tim posebinm nizom kolega svirača. Dakle, za Aristotela, ta vrsta savijanja pravila, pronalaženja izuzetaka i improvizacije koju vidite kod vještih zanatlija je točno što vam treba kako biste bili vješti moralni zanatlija. I u interakciji s ljudima, gotovo uvijek, ta je vrsta fleksibilnosti nužna. Mudra osoba zna kada treba saviti pravila. Mudra osoba zna kada treba improvizirati. I najvažnije, mudra osoba improvizira i savija pravila u službi pravih ciljeva. Ako ste vi onaj koji savija pravila i improvizira kako biste služili sebi, ono što dobijete jest nemilosrdna manipulacija drugih ljudi. Zato je važno da ovo mudro prakticirate kako biste služili drugima a ne sebi. I želja da napravite pravu stvar je jednako važna kao i moralna vještina improvizacije i pronalaženja izuzetaka. Zajedno oni obuhvaćaju praktičnu mudrost, za koju je Aristotel mislio da je majstorska vrlina.
So I'll give you an example of wise practice in action. It's the case of Michael. Michael's a young guy. He had a pretty low-wage job. He was supporting his wife and a child, and the child was going to parochial school. Then he lost his job. He panicked about being able to support his family. One night, he drank a little too much, and he robbed a cab driver -- stole 50 dollars. He robbed him at gunpoint. It was a toy gun. He got caught. He got tried. He got convicted. The Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines required a minimum sentence for a crime like this of two years, 24 months. The judge on the case, Judge Lois Forer thought that this made no sense. He had never committed a crime before. He was a responsible husband and father. He had been faced with desperate circumstances. All this would do is wreck a family. And so she improvised a sentence -- 11 months, and not only that, but release every day to go to work. Spend your night in jail, spend your day holding down a job. He did. He served out his sentence. He made restitution and found himself a new job. And the family was united.
Dati ću vam primjer mudre prakse u akciji. To je slučaj Michaela. Michael je mladi dečko. Imao je prilično slabo plaćeni posao. Brinuo se o ženi i djetetu, i djete mu je išlo u župnu školu. Onda je izgubio posao. Počeo je paničariti hoće li biti i dalje sposoban uzdržavati obitelj. Jedne noći, malo je više popio, i orobio je vozača taksija -- ukravši 50$. Orobio ga je pištoljem. Bila je to igračka. Uhvatili su ga, došao je na suđenje, i osuđen je. Pennsylvanijske upute za izricanje kazne zahtjevaju minimalnu kaznu za ovakav zločin od dvije godine, 24 mjeseca. Sutkinja na slučaju, sutkinja Lois Forer mislila je kako to nema smisla. Nikada prije toga nije počinio zločin. Bio je odgovoran muž i otac. Bio je suočen s beznadnim okolnostima. Sve što bi se time postiglo jest da bi se uništila obitelj. I tako je ona improvizirala kaznu -- 11 mjeseci. I ne samo to, već ga je pustila da svaki dan ide na posao. Provedi noć u zatvoru, a dan tako da zadržiš posao. I je. Odslužio je kaznu. Vratio se iz zatvora i pronašao si novi posao. I obitelj je ostala ujedinjena.
And it seemed on the road to some sort of a decent life -- a happy ending to a story involving wise improvisation from a wise judge. But it turned out the prosecutor was not happy that Judge Forer ignored the sentencing guidelines and sort of invented her own, and so he appealed. And he asked for the mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery. He did after all have a toy gun. The mandatory minimum sentence for armed robbery is five years. He won the appeal. Michael was sentenced to five years in prison. Judge Forer had to follow the law. And by the way, this appeal went through after he had finished serving his sentence, so he was out and working at a job and taking care of his family and he had to go back into jail. Judge Forer did what she was required to do, and then she quit the bench. And Michael disappeared. So that is an example, both of wisdom in practice and the subversion of wisdom by rules that are meant, of course, to make things better.
I činilo se kako će imati neku vrstu pristojnog života -- sretan završetak priče koji uključuje pametnu improvizaciju od pametne sutkinje. Ali ispostavilo se kako tužitelj nije zadovoljan da je sutkinja ignorirala direktive o kažnjavanju i na neki način osmislila svoje, i tako je uložio žalbu. I zatražio obveznu minimalnu kaznu za oružanu pljačku. Ipak je imao igračku oružje. Obvezna minimalna kazna za oružanu pljačku je pet godina. Dobio je na prizivu. Michael je bio osuđen na pet godina zatvora. Sutkinja Forer se morala držati zakona. I uz put, žalba je uložena nakon što je odslužio svoju kaznu, tako da je bio vani i radio svoj posao i brinuo se o obitelji i tako je morao nazad u zatvor. Sutkinja Forer je napravila ono što je zakon tražio, i onda je dala otkaz. A Michael je nestao. Dakle to je jedan primjer, mudrosti u praksi i subverzije mudrosti od strane pravila koju su zamišljena, naravno, da učine stvari boljima.
Now consider Ms. Dewey. Ms. Dewey's a teacher in a Texas elementary school. She found herself listening to a consultant one day who was trying to help teachers boost the test scores of the kids, so that the school would reach the elite category in percentage of kids passing big tests. All these schools in Texas compete with one another to achieve these milestones, and there are bonuses and various other treats that come if you beat the other schools. So here was the consultant's advice: first, don't waste your time on kids who are going to pass the test no matter what you do. Second, don't waste your time on kids who can't pass the test no matter what you do. Third, don't waste your time on kids who moved into the district too late for their scores to be counted. Focus all of your time and attention on the kids who are on the bubble, the so-called "bubble kids" -- kids where your intervention can get them just maybe over the line from failing to passing. So Ms. Dewey heard this, and she shook her head in despair while fellow teachers were sort of cheering each other on and nodding approvingly. It's like they were about to go play a football game. For Ms. Dewey, this isn't why she became a teacher.
Sada razmislite o gđi. Dewey. Gđa. Dewey je učiteljica u teksaškoj osnovnoj školi. Jednoga dana je slušala konzultanta koji je pokušao pomoći učiteljima da poboljšaju rezultate testova djece, kako bi škola ušla u elitnu kategoriju po postotku djece koja su prolazila veliki test. Sve te škole u Teksasu se natječu jedna s drugom kako bi postigle te ciljeve, i postoje bonusi i razne druge pogodnosti koje dolaze ako pobjedite druge škole. Dakle, tu je konzultantov savjet: prvo, ne trošite svoje vrijeme na djecu koja će proći test bez obzira na to što učinili. Drugo, ne trošite svoje vrijeme na djecu koja ne mogu proći test bez obzira na to što učinili. Treće, nemojte trošiti svoje vrijeme na djecu koja su se preselila u okrug prekasno da se njihovi rezultati računaju. Fokusirajte svo svoje vrijeme i pažnju na djecu koja su na rubu uspjeha, takozvanu nadarenu djecu -- na djecu koju vaša intervencija može podići iznad praga od pada do prolaza. Tako je gđa. Dewey to čula, i protresla glavom u očaju dok su se kolege učitelji međusobno bodrili i klimali odobravajuće. Činilo se kao da će igrati nogometnu utakmicu. Gđa. Dewey, nije zbog ovoga postala učiteljicom.
Now Ken and I are not naive, and we understand that you need to have rules. You need to have incentives. People have to make a living. But the problem with relying on rules and incentives is that they demoralize professional activity, and they demoralize professional activity in two senses. First, they demoralize the people who are engaged in the activity. Judge Forer quits, and Ms. Dewey in completely disheartened. And second, they demoralize the activity itself. The very practice is demoralized, and the practitioners are demoralized. It creates people -- when you manipulate incentives to get people to do the right thing -- it creates people who are addicted to incentives. That is to say, it creates people who only do things for incentives.
Ken i ja nismo naivni, i razumijemo da morate imati pravila. Morate imati poticaje. Ljudi moraju zaraditi za život. Ali problem u tome da se pouzdate u pravila i poticaje jest da ona demoraliziraju profesionalnu aktivnost. I demoraliziraju profesionalnu aktivnost na dva načina. Prvo, demoraliziraju ljude koji su uključeni u aktivnost. Sutkinja Forer je dala otkaz, a gđa. Dewey je bila potpuno obeshrabrena. I drugo, oni demoraliziraju aktivnost samu po sebi. Sama profesija je demoralizirana, i praktičari su demoralizirani. To stvara ljude -- kada manipulirate poticajima kako biste dobili ljude da rade prave stvari -- to stvara ljude koji su ovisni o poticajima. To znači, da stvara ljude koji rade stvari samo za poticaje.
Now the striking thing about this is that psychologists have known this for 30 years. Psychologists have known about the negative consequences of incentivizing everything for 30 years. We know that if you reward kids for drawing pictures, they stop caring about the drawing and care only about the reward. If you reward kids for reading books, they stop caring about what's in the books and only care about how long they are. If you reward teachers for kids' test scores, they stop caring about educating and only care about test preparation. If you were to reward doctors for doing more procedures -- which is the current system -- they would do more. If instead you reward doctors for doing fewer procedures, they will do fewer. What we want, of course, is doctors who do just the right amount of procedures and do the right amount for the right reason -- namely, to serve the welfare of their patients. Psychologists have known this for decades, and it's time for policymakers to start paying attention and listen to psychologists a little bit, instead of economists.
Frapantna stvar o ovome je da su psiholozi znali za to 30 godina. Psiholozi su znali o negativnim posljedicama poticanja svega 30 godina. Znamo da ako nagradite djecu za crtanje crteža, prestanu željeti crtati i žele samo nagradu. Ako nagradite djecu zbog čitanja knjiga prestati će se brinuti o tome što je u knjigama i samo će brinuti o tome koliko su dugačke. Ako nagradite učitelje za rezultate djece na testovima oni se prestanu brinuti za edukaciju i brinuti će se samo za pripremu testova. Ako ćete nagraditi doktore za više operacija -- a tako trenutno sustav funkcionira -- oni će ih obavljati više. Ako umjesto toga nagradite doktore za čim manje procedura oni će ih imati manje. Ono što želimo, naravno, jesu doktori koji će imati pravu količinu procedura i odraditi pravu količinu zbog pravih razloga -- konkretno, služiti dobrobiti svojih pacijenata. Psiholozi znaju za to desetljećima, i vrijeme je da oni koji odlučuju počnu obraćati pažnju i slušati malo psihologe, umjesto ekonomista.
And it doesn't have to be this way. We think, Ken and I, that there are real sources of hope. We identify one set of people in all of these practices who we call canny outlaws. These are people who, being forced to operate in a system that demands rule-following and creates incentives, find away around the rules, find a way to subvert the rules. So there are teachers who have these scripts to follow, and they know that if they follow these scripts, the kids will learn nothing. And so what they do is they follow the scripts, but they follow the scripts at double-time and squirrel away little bits of extra time during which they teach in the way that they actually know is effective. So these are little ordinary, everyday heroes, and they're incredibly admirable, but there's no way that they can sustain this kind of activity in the face of a system that either roots them out or grinds them down.
I sve to ne mora biti tako. Mi mislimo, Ken i ja, kako postoje izvori nade. Identificirali smo grupu ljudi u svim tim zanimanjima koje nazivamo lukavim izgnanicima. To su ljudi koji, prisiljeni operirati u sustavu koji zahtjeva potpuno praćenje pravila i kreira poticaje, pronalaze put zaobilazeći ta pravila, pronalaze put rušeći pravila. Postoje učitelji koji imaju te skripte koje prate, i znaju da ako prate te skripte, djeca neće ništa naučiti. I ono što oni rade jest da prate skripte, ali prate skripte duplo brže i pronalaze komadiće ekstra vremena tijekom kojeg podučavaju na način za koji znaju da je učinkovit. Dakle to su mali obični, svakodnevni heroji, i oni zaslužuju divljenje, ali nema načina da održe ovakvu vrstu aktivnosti suočeni sa sustavom koji ih ili odstranjuje ili ih ubija u pojam.
So canny outlaws are better than nothing, but it's hard to imagine any canny outlaw sustaining that for an indefinite period of time. More hopeful are people we call system-changers. These are people who are looking not to dodge the system's rules and regulations, but to transform the system, and we talk about several. One in particular is a judge named Robert Russell. And one day he was faced with the case of Gary Pettengill. Pettengill was a 23-year-old vet who had planned to make the army a career, but then he got a severe back injury in Iraq, and that forced him to take a medical discharge. He was married, he had a third kid on the way, he suffered from PTSD, in addition to the bad back, and recurrent nightmares, and he had started using marijuana to ease some of the symptoms. He was only able to get part-time work because of his back, and so he was unable to earn enough to put food on the table and take care of his family. So he started selling marijuana. He was busted in a drug sweep. His family was kicked out of their apartment, and the welfare system was threatening to take away his kids.
Dakle lukavi izgnanici su bolji od ničega, ali je teško zamisliti nekoga takvoga koji se može održati u nedogled. Više nade nam daju oni ljudi koji mjenjaju sustav. To su oni ljudi koji ne gledaju kako se dodvoriti sustavu pravila i regulacija, već ga žele transformirati, i pričati ćemo o nekoliko njih. Jedan posebno jest sudac Robert Russell. I jednog dana se suočio sa slučajem Garya Pettengilla. Pettengill je bio 23-godišnji veteran koji je planirao napraviti karijeru u vojsci ali onda je imao tešku ozljedu leđa u Iraku, i to ga je prisililo da zatraži medicinski otpust. Bio je oženjen, i treće dijete mu je bilo na putu, patio je od PTSP-a, u dodatku na loša leđa, i povremene noćne more, i počeo je koristiti marihuanu kako bi si olakšao neke od tih simptoma. Zbog leđa je mogao dobiti samo poslove sa skraćenim radnim vremenom, i tako je bilo nemoguće zaraditi dovoljno da bi se stavila hrana na stol i zbrinula obitelj. I tako je poćeo prodavati marihuanu. I bio je uhvaćen u jednoj čistki. Njegova obitelj je bila izbačena iz stana, a centar za socijalnu skrb se prijetio kako će i oduzeti djecu.
Under normal sentencing procedures, Judge Russell would have had little choice but to sentence Pettengill to serious jail-time as a drug felon. But Judge Russell did have an alternative. And that's because he was in a special court. He was in a court called the Veterans' Court. In the Veterans' Court -- this was the first of its kind in the United States. Judge Russell created the Veterans' Court. It was a court only for veterans who had broken the law. And he had created it exactly because mandatory sentencing laws were taking the judgment out of judging. No one wanted non-violent offenders -- and especially non-violent offenders who were veterans to boot -- to be thrown into prison. They wanted to do something about what we all know, namely the revolving door of the criminal justice system. And what the Veterans' Court did, was it treated each criminal as an individual, tried to get inside their problems, tried to fashion responses to their crimes that helped them to rehabilitate themselves, and didn't forget about them once the judgment was made. Stayed with them, followed up on them, made sure that they were sticking to whatever plan had been jointly developed to get them over the hump.
Po normalnim procedurama za kažnjavanje, sudac Russell bi imao malo izbora nego osuditi Pettengilla na ozbiljno vrijeme u zatvoru pod optužbama za prodavanje droge. Ali je sudac Russell imao alternativu. A to je zato jer je on bio na posebnom sudu. On je bio na sudu pod nazivom Sud veterana. Na Sudu veterana -- to je bio prvi takve vrste u SAD-u. Sudac Russell je stvorio Sud veterana. To je bio sud samo za veterane koji su prekršili zakon. I stvorio ga je baš zbog obveznih zakona o kažnjavanju gdje je suđenje oduzeto sucima. Nitko nije želio nenasilne prekršitelje -- a posebno nenasilne prekršitelje koji su bili veterani -- baciti u zatvor. Željeli su napraviti nešto oko onoga što svi znamo, točnije rotirajućih vrata sudskog sustava. I ono što je Sud veterana učinio, jest da je tretirao svakog kriminalca posebno, pokušao je uči u meritum problema, pokušao je povezati zločin s kaznom koji će omogučiti rehabilitaciju i nije zaboravio zbog čega je uopće sudstvo nastalo. Ostanite uz njih, pratite ih, budite sigurni da se drže bilo kakvog plana koji je zajednički razvijen kako bi izašli iz rupe.
There are now 22 cities that have Veterans' Courts like this. Why has the idea spread? Well, one reason is that Judge Russell has now seen 108 vets in his Veterans' Court as of February of this year, and out of 108, guess how many have gone back through the revolving door of justice into prison. None. None. Anyone would glom onto a criminal justice system that has this kind of a record. So here's is a system-changer, and it seems to be catching.
Sada postoje 22 grada koji imaju Sudove veterana poput ovog. Zašto se ta ideja raširila? Jedan razlog je što sudac Russell je do sada vidio 108 veterana u njegovom Sudu za veterane od veljače ove godine, i od njih 108, pogodite koliko njih su prošli kroz rotirajuća vrata pravde u zatvor. Nitko. Nitko. Svatko bi poželio takav pravni sustav koji ima ovakve rezultate. Dakle imamo kandidata koji mijenja sustav i čini se da sustav to podržava.
There's a banker who created a for-profit community bank that encouraged bankers -- I know this is hard to believe -- encouraged bankers who worked there to do well by doing good for their low-income clients. The bank helped finance the rebuilding of what was otherwise a dying community. Though their loan recipients were high-risk by ordinary standards, the default rate was extremely low. The bank was profitable. The bankers stayed with their loan recipients. They didn't make loans and then sell the loans. They serviced the loans. They made sure that their loan recipients were staying up with their payments. Banking hasn't always been the way we read about it now in the newspapers. Even Goldman Sachs once used to serve clients, before it turned into an institution that serves only itself. Banking wasn't always this way, and it doesn't have to be this way.
Postoji bankar koji je kreirao profitnu banku za zajednicu koja potiče bankare -- znam da je to teško vjerovati -- potiče bankare koji tamo rade da rade dobro tako što će učiniti nešto dobro za klijente s nižim primanjima. Banka je pomogla u ponovnoj izgradnji nečega što je bila umiruća zajednica. Premda su njihovi klijenti bili visokorizični po uobičajenim standardima, stope ljudi koji nisu vraćali kredite je bila izuzetno niska. Banka je bila profitablina. Bankari su ostali sa svojim klijentima. Oni nisu stvarali kredite i onda ih prodavali. Oni su servisirali kredite. Pobrinuli su se da njihovi klijenti plaćaju svoje rate. Bankarstvo nije uvijek bilo napravljeno na način o kojem možemo sada čitati u novinama. Čak Goldman Sachs je nekada služio klijentima, prije nego što se pretvorio u instituciju koja služi samoj sebi. Bankarstvo nije uvijek bilo ovakvo i ne mora biti takvim.
So there are examples like this in medicine -- doctors at Harvard who are trying to transform medical education, so that you don't get a kind of ethical erosion and loss of empathy, which characterizes most medical students in the course of their medical training. And the way they do it is to give third-year medical students patients who they follow for an entire year. So the patients are not organ systems, and they're not diseases; they're people, people with lives. And in order to be an effective doctor, you need to treat people who have lives and not just disease. In addition to which there's an enormous amount of back and forth, mentoring of one student by another, of all the students by the doctors, and the result is a generation -- we hope -- of doctors who do have time for the people they treat. We'll see.
Postoje slični primjeri u medicini -- doktori na Harvardu koji pokušavaju transformirati medicinsku edukaciju, kako ne bi dobili etičku eroziju i gubitak empatije, koji karakteriziraju većinu studenata medicine u medicinskom obrazovanju. I način na koji to rade jest da daju studentima treće godine pacijente koje će oni pratiti tijekom cijele godine. Tako pacijenti nisu sustavi organa, i oni nisu bolesti; oni su ljudi, ljudi sa životima. I kako biste postali učinkoviti doktor, morate tretirati ljude koji imaju živote a ne samo bolesti. Pored toga postoji jako puno posla oko, mentoriranja jednog studenta od strane drugog, svih studenata od strane doktora, i rezultat je generacija -- nadamo se -- doktora koji imaju vremena za ljude koje liječe. Vidjeti ćemo.
So there are lots of examples like this that we talk about. Each of them shows that it is possible to build on and nurture character and keep a profession true to its proper mission -- what Aristotle would have called its proper telos. And Ken and I believe that this is what practitioners actually want. People want to be allowed to be virtuous. They want to have permission to do the right thing. They don't want to feel like they need to take a shower to get the moral grime off their bodies everyday when they come home from work.
Postoji jako puno primjera o kojima govorimo. Svaki od njih pokazuje kako je moguće izgraditi i njegovati karakter i zadržati profesiju koja će biti iskrena svojoj misiji -- onome što bi Aristotel nazivao svojim pravim telosom. I Ken i ja vjerujemo da je to što praktičari stvarno žele. Ljudi žele da im se dozvoli da budu moralni. Žele imati dozvolu da mogu učiniti pravu stvar. Ne žele se osjećati da se moraju otuširati kako bi saprali svakodnevne moralne dvojbe kada se vrate kući s posla.
Aristotle thought that practical wisdom was the key to happiness, and he was right. There's now a lot of research being done in psychology on what makes people happy, and the two things that jump out in study after study -- I know this will come as a shock to all of you -- the two things that matter most to happiness are love and work. Love: managing successfully relations with the people who are close to you and with the communities of which you are a part. Work: engaging in activities that are meaningful and satisfying. If you have that, good close relations with other people, work that's meaningful and fulfilling, you don't much need anything else.
Aristotel je mislio kako je praktična mudrost ključ sreće, i bio je u pravu. Danas se radi jako puno istraživanja u prihologiji, o tome što ljude čini sretnima, i dvije stvari koje iskaču u svim studijama -- znam da će vas to šokirati -- dvije stvari koje su najviše povezane sa srećom su ljubav i posao. Ljubav: uspješno upravljanje odnosima s ljudima koji su vam bliski i zajednicima čiji ste dio. Rad: angažiranje u aktivnosti koje su svrsishodne i zadovoljavajuće. Ako imate to, prisan odnos s drugim ljudima, posao koji je svrsishodan i ispunjavajući, ne treba vam puno toga.
Well, to love well and to work well, you need wisdom. Rules and incentives don't tell you how to be a good friend, how to be a good parent, how to be a good spouse, or how to be a good doctor or a good lawyer or a good teacher. Rules and incentives are no substitutes for wisdom. Indeed, we argue, there is no substitute for wisdom. And so practical wisdom does not require heroic acts of self-sacrifice on the part of practitioners. In giving us the will and the skill to do the right thing -- to do right by others -- practical wisdom also gives us the will and the skill to do right by ourselves.
Da biste ljubili dobro i radili dobro, trebate mudrost. Pravila i poticaji vam neće reći kako da budete dobar prijatelj, kako da budete dobar roditelj, kako da budete dobra žena, kako da budete dobar doktor i dobar odvjetnik ili dobar učitelj. Pravila i poticaji nisu zamjena za mudrost. Stvarno, uvjeravamo vas, nema zamjene za mudrost. I tako praktična mudrost ne zahtjeva herojske činove samo-žrtvovanja praktičara. Dajući nam želju i vještinu da napravimo dobru stvar -- da radimo dobro drugima -- praktična mudrost nam daje želju i vještinu da radimo dobro sami po sebi.
Thanks.
Hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)