【翻譯練習】汲汲營營，所為何事
What Work Is Really For
日期：September 8, 2012
作者：GARY GUTTING
來源：http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/work-good-or-bad/?src=me&ref=general
Is work good or bad? A fatuous question, it may seem, with unemployment such a pressing national concern. (Apart from the names of the two candidates, "jobs" was the politically relevant word most used by speakers at the Republican and Democratic conventions.) Even apart from current worries, the goodness of work is deep in our culture. We applaud people for their work ethic, judge our economy by its productivity and even honor work with a national holiday.
工作，究竟好或不好？這問題聽起來頗不得體，尤其現今失業率居高，有工作就是萬幸，何暇顧及工作究竟好不好的問題。(在此稱｢工作｣，不說｢職業｣，｢職業｣帶有政治意味，留給共和黨和民主黨用在造勢大會)。撇開失業率成分不談，社會觀念中，工作依然貴為美德，何以見得？具備工作倫理的勞工，受到讚賞；以生產力衡量經濟表現；勞動節定為國定假日。由此種種，可見一斑。
But there's an underlying ambivalence: we celebrate Labor Day by not working, the Book of Genesis says work is punishment for Adam's sin, and many of us count the days to the next vacation and see a contented retirement as the only reason for working.
然而其中有些吊詭：慶祝｢勞動｣節，卻以不勞動而放假的模式進行；聖經《創世紀》言，工作是用以懲罰亞當之罪愆；許多上班族一邊上班一邊巴望下個長假的到來，至於工作的唯一理由，竟是為了退休後的安逸生活。
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is he ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:17 又對亞當說、你既聽從妻子的話、喫了我所吩咐你不可喫的那樹上的果子、地必為你的緣故受咒詛．你必終身勞苦、纔能從地裡得喫的。
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:18 地必給你長出荊棘和蒺藜來、你也要喫田間的菜蔬。
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3:19 你必汗流滿面纔得糊口、直到你歸了土、因為你是從土而出的．你本是塵土、仍要歸於塵土。
We're ambivalent about work because in our capitalist system it means work-for-pay (wage-labor), not for its own sake. It is what philosophers call an instrumental good, something valuable not in itself but for what we can use it to achieve. For most of us, a paying job is still utterly essential - as masses of unemployed people know all too well. But in our economic system, most of us inevitably see our work as a means to something else: it makes a living, but it doesn't make a life.
資本主義制度下，並非為了工作本身而工作，卻是為了賺錢而工作。對此，我們有點無所適從。哲學理論中，將這般態性，稱為｢工具之善｣；也就是說，工作的價值，不在於工作本身，而在於工作所能達到的目標。對大多數人而言，不能不工作，畢竟所得來源就是靠工作，失業民眾尤能體會這點。但處在如此經濟體系，工作成了獲取他種利益的手段之一。靠著工作，賺錢，我們可餬口過活，然而生活品質，卻成犧牲品。
What, then, is work for? Aristotle has a striking answer: "we work to have leisure, on which happiness depends." This may at first seem absurd. How can we be happy just doing nothing, however sweetly (dolce far niente)? Doesn't idleness lead to boredom, the life-destroying ennui portrayed in so many novels, at least since "Madame Bovary"?
究竟，工作所為何事？亞里斯多德回答得絕：｢工作，為了休閒。有了休閒，才有快樂。｣初聽此言，或許頗感荒謬。閒暇的狀態，無有勞動，如此也能快樂？雖然義大利語有句｢dolce far niente｣，意為無所事事的美好。但閒閒沒事，可不無聊？從《包法利夫人》開始，已有多部小說描寫：只因無聊，人生一場，轉眼灰飛煙滅。
Everything depends on how we understand leisure. Is it mere idleness, simply doing nothing? Then a life of leisure is at best boring (a lesson of Voltaire's "Candide"), and at worst terrifying (leaving us, as Pascal says, with nothing to distract from the thought of death). No, the leisure Aristotle has in mind is productive activity enjoyed for its own sake, while work is done for something else.
端看如何理解｢休閒｣這件事。若｢休閒｣等同閒閒沒事，則休閒的生活，充其量只有無聊(伏爾泰小說《憨第德》，不妨一讀)；而休閒導致無聊，還算可接受的最佳程度；最糟的狀況是，休閒將帶來恐懼(帕斯卡說：一旦無事可做，死亡的念頭，便開始徘徊聚集──需要做點事，才能分心，不去想到死亡)。
非也，休閒並非閒閒沒事。亞里斯多德的休閒，意指善加享受休閒本質中具有生產力的活動；至於工作，又是為了其他目的。
We can pass by for now the question of just what activities are truly enjoyable for their own sake - perhaps eating and drinking, sports, love, adventure, art, contemplation? The point is that engaging in such activities - and sharing them with others - is what makes a good life. Leisure, not work, should be our primary goal.
切入下個問題：什麼工作本身值得享受？吃喝、運動、戀愛、探險、運動、冥想？其實，若能投入所做的每件事，且樂於分享，美好人生即不難擁有。休閒，才是工作最原初的目的，不是一開始就侷限在工作只為了工作。
Bertrand Russell, in his classic essay "In Praise of Idleness," agrees. "A great deal of harm," he says, "is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work." Instead, "the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work." Before the technological breakthroughs of the last two centuries, leisure could be only "the prerogative of small privileged classes," supported by slave labor or a near equivalent. But this is no longer necessary: "The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery."
羅素經典的隨筆結集《樂在閒中》持同樣看法：｢這社會，因盲信工作之美德，生出多少事端｣。恰當的作法是，｢有紀律地減少工作扮演的輕重分量，方為通達快樂和榮盛的正途｣。近兩百年間，科技大幅躍進，但在此前，休閒只是｢少數特權階級的專利｣，特權階級有奴隸服侍。然時過境遷，奴隸成了過去式，｢奴隸所遵從的倫理道德，即是工作應有的倫理道德；然現今開明的社會，奴隸已無存在的必要｣。
Using Adam Smith's famous example of pins, Russell makes the solution seem utterly simple:
羅素利用經濟學家亞當‧史密斯著名的大頭針之例，大幅簡化了面對工作／休閒難題時的解決方案：
We are, Russell thinks, kept from a world of leisure only by a perversely lingering prejudice in favor of work for its own sake.
羅素認為，我們根深蒂固的偏見，太執著於工作就是工作，以致無法享受休閒之樂。
But isn't Russell making an obvious mistake? He assumes that the only reason to continue working eight hours a day would be to make more pins, which we don't need. In modern capitalism, however, the idea would be to make better pins (or perhaps something even better than pins), in that way improving the quality of our lives. Suppose that in 1932, when Russell wrote his essay, we had followed his advice and converted all gains in productivity into increased leisure. Antibiotics, jet airplanes and digital computers, then just glimmers on the horizon, would likely never have become integral parts of our lives. We can argue about just what constitutes real progress, but it's clear that Russell's simple proposal would sometimes mean trading quality of life for more leisure.
但羅素的舉例，錯得明顯。他的假設是：我們一天工作8小時，結果只做出比需要數量還多餘的大頭釘。但依現今資本主義觀念，重點不在於數量做得更多，而在於品質做得更好，甚至做出比大頭釘更優的產品。倘若時光重返羅素寫這篇隨筆的1932年，人們聽從其建議，將生產力轉化為休閒，增加娛樂時間；那麼，當時尚屬草創時期的抗生素、噴射機、電腦等產品，也就不可能有所進展，遑論在現代具有舉足輕重地位。羅素提的觀點，其中有些程序問題雖有討論空間，但說穿了，他的簡明方案不過是以生活品質換取更多休閒。
But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better. If products sell because they improve the quality of our life, well and good, but it doesn't in the end matter why they sell. The system works at least as well if a product sells not because it is a genuine contribution to human well-being but because people are falsely persuaded that they should have it. Often, in fact, it's easier to persuade people to buy something that's inferior than it is to make something that's superior. This is why stores are filled with products that cater to fads and insecurities but no real human need.
然而確切來說，資本主義並非以生活品質為主要考量。資本主義本質上是個製造、販售產品以獲利的體系。追求利益，多還要多。若產品確實有益生活品質，不失為美事一樁；但產品賣得好，卻不是歸功於產品｢有益生活品質｣的因素。產品銷路佳，或許僅因人們被誤導需要這項產品而購買，而非因產品功能造福全人類。即便實情真是如此，資本主義仍可順利運作。事實上，比起研發更具價值的新產品，單純說服人們掏腰包購買某項物低所值的產品，這件事還容易得多。思及此，見商店中竟充斥只追趕流行、但不符安全規定的冗物，亦也不足為奇了。
It would seem, then, that we should increase leisure - and make life more worthwhile - by producing only what makes for better lives. In turn, workers would have the satisfaction of producing things of real value.
看來，似乎只好製造出真正實用的產品，休閒時間方能增加，且生活更有價值。這樣的話，工廠員工們也將滿足於一己勞動對社會對全人類的貢獻。
But this raises the essential question: who decides what is of real value? The capitalist system's own answer is consumers, free to buy whatever they want in an open market. I call this capitalism's own answer because it is the one that keeps the system operating autonomously, a law unto itself. It especially appeals to owners, managers and others with a vested interest in the system.
然而又引起了個不能不談的問題：由何人決定一件產品究竟有無實用、有無價值？資本主義式的回答，矛頭指向：消費者。市場自由開放，消費者想買什麼就買什麼。我用｢資本主義式的回答｣這詞，因為正是消費者能夠隨心所欲購買，資本主義才有辦法自主地(也是一意孤行地)運作下去。資本主義體系內的業主、經理人等既得利益之流，尤其滿意這個回答。
But the answer is disingenuous. From our infancy the market itself has worked to make us consumers, primed to buy whatever it is selling regardless of its relevance to human flourishing. True freedom requires that we take part in the market as fully formed agents, with life goals determined not by advertising campaigns but by our own experience of and reflection on the various possibilities of human fulfillment. Such freedom in turn requires a liberating education, one centered not on indoctrination, social conditioning or technical training but on developing persons capable of informed and intelligent commitments to the values that guide their lives.
這個回答卻不符事實。市場機制賦予世間眾人｢消費者｣的角色，商店賣什麼，我們就買什麼，而所賣產品是否有益於生活幸福，不在考慮之列。自由的要義中，消費者需作為完全主體，參與市場機制；並且藉由體驗與反思能夠完成自我實現的種種可能性，來決定生活的目標；廣告促銷再如何花稍奪目，亦無從愚弄我們的思考。欲達成此般自由的要義，需要開明的教育。教育並非只在乎教條填鴨、社會制約養成、或技術訓練；教育應要著重培育學習者，有智慧地信從其認定的生活價值。
This is why, especially in our capitalist society, education must not be primarily for training workers or consumers (both tools of capitalism, as Marxists might say). Rather, schools should aim to produce self-determining agents who can see through the blandishments of the market and insist that the market provide what they themselves have decided they need to lead fulfilling lives. Capitalism, with its devotion to profit, is not in itself evil. But it becomes evil when it controls our choices for the sake of profit.
因此，教育的主要作用，不該只是送出一批又一批訓練有素的員工或消費者；資本主義社會尤須注意這點。(馬克思主義中，員工和消費者，都是資本主義的工具。)學校應志在教育學生成為具備自主決定能力的主體，明瞭市場的虛浮假象，堅定主張該由消費者來決定市場商品，亦即真正符合需要、有助充實生活的商品。資本主義本質上並非全惡，畢竟資本主義引進利潤的概念；但若資本主義假利潤之名、行操弄消費者之實，則誠然為邪惡化身了。
Capitalism works for the good only when our independent choices determine what the market must produce to make a profit. These choices - of liberally educated free agents - will set the standards of capitalist production and lead to a world in which, as Aristotle said, work is for the sake of leisure. We are, unfortunately, far from this ideal, but it is one worth working toward.
當我們能夠自主抉擇市場產品，資本主義方足稱為有益。理想情形為，受過開明教育的自由意志主體，所自我抉擇的選項，定調資本主義該生產何種商品；而亞里斯多德所言｢工作為了休閒｣，便將成真。惋惜的是，此目標現仍遙不可及；但來日方長，值得大家共同努力，追求理想。
日期：September 8, 2012
作者：GARY GUTTING
來源：http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/work-good-or-bad/?src=me&ref=general
Is work good or bad? A fatuous question, it may seem, with unemployment such a pressing national concern. (Apart from the names of the two candidates, "jobs" was the politically relevant word most used by speakers at the Republican and Democratic conventions.) Even apart from current worries, the goodness of work is deep in our culture. We applaud people for their work ethic, judge our economy by its productivity and even honor work with a national holiday.
工作，究竟好或不好？這問題聽起來頗不得體，尤其現今失業率居高，有工作就是萬幸，何暇顧及工作究竟好不好的問題。(在此稱｢工作｣，不說｢職業｣，｢職業｣帶有政治意味，留給共和黨和民主黨用在造勢大會)。撇開失業率成分不談，社會觀念中，工作依然貴為美德，何以見得？具備工作倫理的勞工，受到讚賞；以生產力衡量經濟表現；勞動節定為國定假日。由此種種，可見一斑。
But there's an underlying ambivalence: we celebrate Labor Day by not working, the Book of Genesis says work is punishment for Adam's sin, and many of us count the days to the next vacation and see a contented retirement as the only reason for working.
然而其中有些吊詭：慶祝｢勞動｣節，卻以不勞動而放假的模式進行；聖經《創世紀》言，工作是用以懲罰亞當之罪愆；許多上班族一邊上班一邊巴望下個長假的到來，至於工作的唯一理由，竟是為了退休後的安逸生活。
And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is he ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
3:17 又對亞當說、你既聽從妻子的話、喫了我所吩咐你不可喫的那樹上的果子、地必為你的緣故受咒詛．你必終身勞苦、纔能從地裡得喫的。
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
3:18 地必給你長出荊棘和蒺藜來、你也要喫田間的菜蔬。
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
3:19 你必汗流滿面纔得糊口、直到你歸了土、因為你是從土而出的．你本是塵土、仍要歸於塵土。
We're ambivalent about work because in our capitalist system it means work-for-pay (wage-labor), not for its own sake. It is what philosophers call an instrumental good, something valuable not in itself but for what we can use it to achieve. For most of us, a paying job is still utterly essential - as masses of unemployed people know all too well. But in our economic system, most of us inevitably see our work as a means to something else: it makes a living, but it doesn't make a life.
資本主義制度下，並非為了工作本身而工作，卻是為了賺錢而工作。對此，我們有點無所適從。哲學理論中，將這般態性，稱為｢工具之善｣；也就是說，工作的價值，不在於工作本身，而在於工作所能達到的目標。對大多數人而言，不能不工作，畢竟所得來源就是靠工作，失業民眾尤能體會這點。但處在如此經濟體系，工作成了獲取他種利益的手段之一。靠著工作，賺錢，我們可餬口過活，然而生活品質，卻成犧牲品。
What, then, is work for? Aristotle has a striking answer: "we work to have leisure, on which happiness depends." This may at first seem absurd. How can we be happy just doing nothing, however sweetly (dolce far niente)? Doesn't idleness lead to boredom, the life-destroying ennui portrayed in so many novels, at least since "Madame Bovary"?
究竟，工作所為何事？亞里斯多德回答得絕：｢工作，為了休閒。有了休閒，才有快樂。｣初聽此言，或許頗感荒謬。閒暇的狀態，無有勞動，如此也能快樂？雖然義大利語有句｢dolce far niente｣，意為無所事事的美好。但閒閒沒事，可不無聊？從《包法利夫人》開始，已有多部小說描寫：只因無聊，人生一場，轉眼灰飛煙滅。
Everything depends on how we understand leisure. Is it mere idleness, simply doing nothing? Then a life of leisure is at best boring (a lesson of Voltaire's "Candide"), and at worst terrifying (leaving us, as Pascal says, with nothing to distract from the thought of death). No, the leisure Aristotle has in mind is productive activity enjoyed for its own sake, while work is done for something else.
端看如何理解｢休閒｣這件事。若｢休閒｣等同閒閒沒事，則休閒的生活，充其量只有無聊(伏爾泰小說《憨第德》，不妨一讀)；而休閒導致無聊，還算可接受的最佳程度；最糟的狀況是，休閒將帶來恐懼(帕斯卡說：一旦無事可做，死亡的念頭，便開始徘徊聚集──需要做點事，才能分心，不去想到死亡)。
非也，休閒並非閒閒沒事。亞里斯多德的休閒，意指善加享受休閒本質中具有生產力的活動；至於工作，又是為了其他目的。
We can pass by for now the question of just what activities are truly enjoyable for their own sake - perhaps eating and drinking, sports, love, adventure, art, contemplation? The point is that engaging in such activities - and sharing them with others - is what makes a good life. Leisure, not work, should be our primary goal.
切入下個問題：什麼工作本身值得享受？吃喝、運動、戀愛、探險、運動、冥想？其實，若能投入所做的每件事，且樂於分享，美好人生即不難擁有。休閒，才是工作最原初的目的，不是一開始就侷限在工作只為了工作。
Bertrand Russell, in his classic essay "In Praise of Idleness," agrees. "A great deal of harm," he says, "is being done in the modern world by belief in the virtuousness of work." Instead, "the road to happiness and prosperity lies in an organized diminution of work." Before the technological breakthroughs of the last two centuries, leisure could be only "the prerogative of small privileged classes," supported by slave labor or a near equivalent. But this is no longer necessary: "The morality of work is the morality of slaves, and the modern world has no need of slavery."
羅素經典的隨筆結集《樂在閒中》持同樣看法：｢這社會，因盲信工作之美德，生出多少事端｣。恰當的作法是，｢有紀律地減少工作扮演的輕重分量，方為通達快樂和榮盛的正途｣。近兩百年間，科技大幅躍進，但在此前，休閒只是｢少數特權階級的專利｣，特權階級有奴隸服侍。然時過境遷，奴隸成了過去式，｢奴隸所遵從的倫理道德，即是工作應有的倫理道德；然現今開明的社會，奴隸已無存在的必要｣。
Using Adam Smith's famous example of pins, Russell makes the solution seem utterly simple:
羅素利用經濟學家亞當‧史密斯著名的大頭針之例，大幅簡化了面對工作／休閒難題時的解決方案：
Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacturing of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before.
假設：某時，某群人，地點大頭針工廠。一天工作8小時，製造世界上需用的大頭針，只製出恰好足夠數量。有人發明一法，使同樣一群人，製出的大頭針數量，比原來多一倍。大頭針已便宜到底，即使產量增加，價格亦不至滑落。照理言，員工只需工作4小時即可，不必工作8小時，並且不會造成任何影響。
假設：某時，某群人，地點大頭針工廠。一天工作8小時，製造世界上需用的大頭針，只製出恰好足夠數量。有人發明一法，使同樣一群人，製出的大頭針數量，比原來多一倍。大頭針已便宜到底，即使產量增加，價格亦不至滑落。照理言，員工只需工作4小時即可，不必工作8小時，並且不會造成任何影響。
We are, Russell thinks, kept from a world of leisure only by a perversely lingering prejudice in favor of work for its own sake.
羅素認為，我們根深蒂固的偏見，太執著於工作就是工作，以致無法享受休閒之樂。
But isn't Russell making an obvious mistake? He assumes that the only reason to continue working eight hours a day would be to make more pins, which we don't need. In modern capitalism, however, the idea would be to make better pins (or perhaps something even better than pins), in that way improving the quality of our lives. Suppose that in 1932, when Russell wrote his essay, we had followed his advice and converted all gains in productivity into increased leisure. Antibiotics, jet airplanes and digital computers, then just glimmers on the horizon, would likely never have become integral parts of our lives. We can argue about just what constitutes real progress, but it's clear that Russell's simple proposal would sometimes mean trading quality of life for more leisure.
但羅素的舉例，錯得明顯。他的假設是：我們一天工作8小時，結果只做出比需要數量還多餘的大頭釘。但依現今資本主義觀念，重點不在於數量做得更多，而在於品質做得更好，甚至做出比大頭釘更優的產品。倘若時光重返羅素寫這篇隨筆的1932年，人們聽從其建議，將生產力轉化為休閒，增加娛樂時間；那麼，當時尚屬草創時期的抗生素、噴射機、電腦等產品，也就不可能有所進展，遑論在現代具有舉足輕重地位。羅素提的觀點，其中有些程序問題雖有討論空間，但說穿了，他的簡明方案不過是以生活品質換取更多休閒。
But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better. If products sell because they improve the quality of our life, well and good, but it doesn't in the end matter why they sell. The system works at least as well if a product sells not because it is a genuine contribution to human well-being but because people are falsely persuaded that they should have it. Often, in fact, it's easier to persuade people to buy something that's inferior than it is to make something that's superior. This is why stores are filled with products that cater to fads and insecurities but no real human need.
然而確切來說，資本主義並非以生活品質為主要考量。資本主義本質上是個製造、販售產品以獲利的體系。追求利益，多還要多。若產品確實有益生活品質，不失為美事一樁；但產品賣得好，卻不是歸功於產品｢有益生活品質｣的因素。產品銷路佳，或許僅因人們被誤導需要這項產品而購買，而非因產品功能造福全人類。即便實情真是如此，資本主義仍可順利運作。事實上，比起研發更具價值的新產品，單純說服人們掏腰包購買某項物低所值的產品，這件事還容易得多。思及此，見商店中竟充斥只追趕流行、但不符安全規定的冗物，亦也不足為奇了。
It would seem, then, that we should increase leisure - and make life more worthwhile - by producing only what makes for better lives. In turn, workers would have the satisfaction of producing things of real value.
看來，似乎只好製造出真正實用的產品，休閒時間方能增加，且生活更有價值。這樣的話，工廠員工們也將滿足於一己勞動對社會對全人類的貢獻。
But this raises the essential question: who decides what is of real value? The capitalist system's own answer is consumers, free to buy whatever they want in an open market. I call this capitalism's own answer because it is the one that keeps the system operating autonomously, a law unto itself. It especially appeals to owners, managers and others with a vested interest in the system.
然而又引起了個不能不談的問題：由何人決定一件產品究竟有無實用、有無價值？資本主義式的回答，矛頭指向：消費者。市場自由開放，消費者想買什麼就買什麼。我用｢資本主義式的回答｣這詞，因為正是消費者能夠隨心所欲購買，資本主義才有辦法自主地(也是一意孤行地)運作下去。資本主義體系內的業主、經理人等既得利益之流，尤其滿意這個回答。
But the answer is disingenuous. From our infancy the market itself has worked to make us consumers, primed to buy whatever it is selling regardless of its relevance to human flourishing. True freedom requires that we take part in the market as fully formed agents, with life goals determined not by advertising campaigns but by our own experience of and reflection on the various possibilities of human fulfillment. Such freedom in turn requires a liberating education, one centered not on indoctrination, social conditioning or technical training but on developing persons capable of informed and intelligent commitments to the values that guide their lives.
這個回答卻不符事實。市場機制賦予世間眾人｢消費者｣的角色，商店賣什麼，我們就買什麼，而所賣產品是否有益於生活幸福，不在考慮之列。自由的要義中，消費者需作為完全主體，參與市場機制；並且藉由體驗與反思能夠完成自我實現的種種可能性，來決定生活的目標；廣告促銷再如何花稍奪目，亦無從愚弄我們的思考。欲達成此般自由的要義，需要開明的教育。教育並非只在乎教條填鴨、社會制約養成、或技術訓練；教育應要著重培育學習者，有智慧地信從其認定的生活價值。
This is why, especially in our capitalist society, education must not be primarily for training workers or consumers (both tools of capitalism, as Marxists might say). Rather, schools should aim to produce self-determining agents who can see through the blandishments of the market and insist that the market provide what they themselves have decided they need to lead fulfilling lives. Capitalism, with its devotion to profit, is not in itself evil. But it becomes evil when it controls our choices for the sake of profit.
因此，教育的主要作用，不該只是送出一批又一批訓練有素的員工或消費者；資本主義社會尤須注意這點。(馬克思主義中，員工和消費者，都是資本主義的工具。)學校應志在教育學生成為具備自主決定能力的主體，明瞭市場的虛浮假象，堅定主張該由消費者來決定市場商品，亦即真正符合需要、有助充實生活的商品。資本主義本質上並非全惡，畢竟資本主義引進利潤的概念；但若資本主義假利潤之名、行操弄消費者之實，則誠然為邪惡化身了。
Capitalism works for the good only when our independent choices determine what the market must produce to make a profit. These choices - of liberally educated free agents - will set the standards of capitalist production and lead to a world in which, as Aristotle said, work is for the sake of leisure. We are, unfortunately, far from this ideal, but it is one worth working toward.
當我們能夠自主抉擇市場產品，資本主義方足稱為有益。理想情形為，受過開明教育的自由意志主體，所自我抉擇的選項，定調資本主義該生產何種商品；而亞里斯多德所言｢工作為了休閒｣，便將成真。惋惜的是，此目標現仍遙不可及；但來日方長，值得大家共同努力，追求理想。