Actual Text
1. There was a study done that had students go door to door in Israel asking for monetary donations. The group was split into thirds and each group was given a different incentive. The first group was sat down and told about how important the different causes are. The second group was told they would receive a 1% commission. The last group was told that they would get a 10% commission. The results founded demonstrated that those who did not receive a monetary commission collected the most money.
2. The article touched upon the difference between what money can't buy (like friendship and honor) and what money shouldn't be able to buy, but it can (organs, and apologies.)
Responses
1. I think that it is pretty impressive that those who did not receive commission were the ones who collected the most money. At first I was a little surprised because I originally thought that those individuals who were being paid would have the most incentive to collect donations. The fact that these individuals regard doing charity as a higher incentive than money is pretty cool. This may not be the case for all individuals, but it definitely highlights the fact that not everyone's number one incentive is always money. People do have "moral convictions" that sometimes are placed higher about monetary prizes.
2. Purchasing organs on the black market is something that is very controversial. Whether or not some is able to purchase organs from someone else is an issue that involves the value of a human life. It raises the issue of how much money is our life worth. I think that the author was correct when saying this is something that is actually up for purchase, but should not be. As humans we should not be able to take away vital organs just for a monetary reward. I also thought it was interesting how it mentions the fairness objection. This suggests that sometimes people have no other choice than to sell an organ.
« Week 3- Why I am leaving Goldman-SachsWhat Money Can't Buy »
More blog posts in this category Common