????摩根大通銀行（J. P. Morgan Chase）宣布與美國司法部（U.S. Justice Department）達成協議，創紀錄地賠付130億美元。當天下午，銀行與分析師召開了電話會議。

????大家要是感興趣，可以聽完整場會議，但會議過程非常乏味。我推薦你直接跳到13分40秒處，摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）的一位分析師問到了和解協議的關鍵點——（雙方商定的）事實陳述。她問道：“我認為，你們在協議中承認對公眾放出了嚴重失實的報告?！苯又謫枺骸澳銈兡懿荒軒臀覀兏闱宄@是什么意思，你們認為這會對你們與非政府的債券持有人的交易造成什么影響？”

????換句話說，摩根大通，你對我們撒謊了嗎？我們今后還能再相信你嗎？21世紀的人們不怎么聊撒謊這個話題。我們或許會承認“過失”，承認自己“講錯了話”或“沒有如實陳述事實。”有時候我們甚至會道歉。不過我們到底有多高的頻率能夠聽到別人——朋友、鄰居、愛人、獲選官員、職業運動員、《財富》500強公司的首席執行官——對我們說“我撒謊了”？事實是，并不經常。

????因為這點，我被山姆·哈里斯的一本論著吸引了，它剛剛由Four Elephants Press出版了精裝本。書的標題簡短樸實，卻令人心緒難平：《謊言》（Lying）。哈里斯也是暢銷的無神論者宣言《信仰的終結》（The End of Faith）一書的作者。他就像大家雇來裝修廚房的木匠，把壁板移開，讓被侵蝕的基石顯露出來，告訴你，你們家的地基已經是多么的不穩固。你坐下一會就能把這本《謊言》讀完，甚至連你的下一次約會都不會耽擱。這是一筆小小的投資，但卻可能給你帶來巨大的回報，無論是對你個人，還是對你的工作而言都是如此。

????哈里斯寫道：“撒謊，即有意誤導想要與你坦誠交流的其他人。”“有意”這個修飾語排除那些無意誤導的人；而“想要”，哈里斯寫道，則排除了撲克玩家和魔術師，“它闡釋了一種心理上或者社會上的現象，它的一般形式很容易被發現?！?/p>

????這是一種有害的現象，會損害人際關系（“個人誠信的喪失一旦被揭露，就難以被忘記”）。從更宏觀的層面來說，它會造成對權威條件反射性的不信任：“結果就是，對于氣候變化、環境污染、人體營養、經濟政策、國際矛盾、醫藥和其他許多領域，如今已經很難說出任何實質性的內容，因為大量觀眾都在對甚至最可靠的信息來源表示質疑?！?/p>

????哈里斯參加了一場題為“倫理分析師”（The Ethical Analyst）的斯坦福大學（Stanford）學生的研討課，主講人是工程學院的教授羅納德·霍華德。課程致力于探討一個簡單的問題：撒謊有錯嗎？從那以后，他就開始努力思考撒謊的問題。

????看起來這個話題更適合于幼兒園，而不是大學。不過哈里斯寫道，這是他學習生涯中的閃光點，“從我的體驗來看，這就像是給我的大腦進行了一次固件升級。”新版的書中加入了與霍華德教授的問答環節，哈里斯說：“我還記得離開你的課堂時的那種感受，就像是我在生活的正中心發現了一顆炸彈，同時也拿到了工具，在它還沒來得及造成任何破壞之前拆除了它?！?/p>

????撒謊之所以成為如此引人注目的話題，是因為它不僅比表面看起來要復雜得多，而且在于你越想它，越覺得自己想得太少。哈里斯回顧了一個這樣的事例：一個朋友在水池邊，在兩人妻子都在場的情況下問他，“你覺得我看起來是不是超重了？”這個可憐的家伙也許只是在尋求安慰。哈里斯也知道這一點。這時候為什么不說一個無害的、“善意”謊言呢？

????因為善意的謊言也是謊言。哈里斯寫道：“而且說謊時，我們會引發所有因為面對他人時處理問題不夠坦率所造成的問題。誠信、真實、正直、相互理解，以及其他的精神財富之源，都在我們故意錯誤地表達自己觀點的那一刻被破壞了，無論我們的謊言是否被發現?！?/p>

????所以哈里斯對他直說了。他說：“沒有人說過你‘胖’，不過如果我是你的話，我會想要減掉25磅。”兩個月后，他的朋友減掉了15磅?！拔覀兌疾恢浪麥蕚涔澥硿p肥，直到我拒絕對他撒謊，原原本本地描述了他穿泳衣的樣子?！?/p>

????到目前為止，這是個不錯的故事。不過不是所有的謊言都一樣。哈里斯寫道：“人們撒謊，其他人就會形成錯誤的觀念。形成的觀念越重要——即一個人的幸福越依賴于對這個世界或者其他人的觀點的正確理解——這個謊言就越重要?！?/p>

????哈里斯并不幻想著說真話的力量能讓大型企業從此根除腐敗。實際上，他對哈里斯教授說：“我開始懷疑……在什么層面上，我們看到的道德問題可以最好地得到解決。”犧牲了自己的職業生涯，為了真相進行檢舉的人已經知道哈里斯疑惑的是什么——困難之處在于“創造一個讓人們對事物的優先級保持一致的體制，如此一來，相比于處在不當誘因的環境中，普通人會更容易表現得更有道德感?！?/p>

????由此，我們可以再次回到摩根大通銀行事件。雙方達成的協議中的事實陳述是一份濃縮的文檔。在諸如摩根大通知道自己正在兜售在金融中與硝化甘油類似的危險品，或者對客戶隱瞞了事實這些方面，文檔中并未明確提及。不過文檔中確實提到了：

????摩根大通的員工“被盡職調查的服務商告知，摩根大通已經購買及隨后證券化的至少部分貸款池所包含的若干項貸款與發起人的包銷指引并不相符；”他們意識到“擔保貸款的若干資產的估值高于盡職審查測試得出的估值；”然而，他們“對投資者表示……證券化后的貸款池所包含的貸款‘大體’與貸款發起人的包銷指引一致；”他們承諾：“‘如果有任何情況引起（摩根大通）注意，并令其認為買方或發起人的聲明和保證無法在所有的重大方面保持準確及完整……’，將不會納入證券化貸款池內的任何貸款?！泵靼琢藛?？

????首席財務官瑪麗安娜·雷克接下了分析師的這個問題，并回答道：“首先，我們并沒有說自己承認了嚴重的失實報告。我們陳述的事實可能會與別人的有些不同。但我們認為文件本身能夠說明問題，而且它已經公之于眾。我們確實承認這份事實陳述，但顯然并不承認其中有任何違反法律的行為……”

????無稽之談。

????夠了。如果她不能說，讓我來替她說吧：摩根大通當時確實撒謊了。

????譯者：嚴匡正

????On the day that J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) announced it had agreed to a record $13 billion settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, the bank held an afternoon conference call with analysts.

????You can listen to the whole thing if you want, but it's tedious. I recommend skipping to about the 13:40 mark, when an analyst from Morgan Stanley (MS) asks a question about the statement of facts (agreed to by both parties) at the heart of the settlement. "I think in the settlement you acknowledged that you made serious misrepresentations to the public," is how she framed her question. Then: "Can you just help us understand what you mean by that, and how you expect that's going to affect your dealings with non-government bondholders?"

????In other words, J.P. Morgan Chase, Did you lie to us? And can we ever trust you again?We 21st Century humans don't talk much about lying. We might acknowledge "errors" or say we "misspoke" or admit that we "misrepresented the facts." And we'll sometimes even say we're sorry. But how often do we hear anyone -- friend, neighbor, loved one, elected official, professional athlete, CEO of a Fortune 500 company -- say to us, "I lied?" Not very.

????Which is part of what attracted me to a book-length essay by Sam Harris, just published in hardcover by Four Elephants Press, with the stark and unsettling title, Lying. Harris, bestselling author of the atheist manifesto The End of Faith, is like the carpenter you hired to renovate your kitchen -- the guy who removed the siding, exposed the rotting sills, and showed you just how shaky your foundation really is. You can read Lying in one sitting, maybe even before your next appointment. It's a small investment for what could be a huge payoff, personal as well as professional.

????"To lie," Harris writes, "is to intentionally mislead others when they expect honest communication." The qualifier about intentionality forgives the merely misinformed; the one about expectations, Harris writes, absolves poker players and magicians "while illuminating a psychological and social landscape whose general shape is very easy to recognize."

????It's a toxic landscape that poisons personal relations ("Failures of personal integrity, once revealed, are rarely forgotten"), and on a bigger scale, engenders reflexive distrust of authority: "As a result, it is now impossible to say anything of substance on climate change, environmental pollution, human nutrition, economic policy, foreign conflicts, medicine and dozens of other subjects without a significant percentage of one's audience expressing paralyzing doubts about even the most reputable sources of information."

????Harris has been thinking hard about lying ever since he took an undergraduate seminar at Stanford called "The Ethical Analyst," taught by Ronald Howard, a professor at the engineering school. The class was devoted to examining a single question: Is it wrong to lie?

????That may seem like a discussion more appropriate to kindergarten than college, yet Harris writes that it was the highlight of his education, "as close to a firmware upgrade of my brain as I have ever experienced." In the Q&A with Professor Howard included in the new edition, Harris says, "I remember leaving your course feeling that I had discovered a bomb at the very center of my life and had been given the tools to diffuse it before it could do any damage."

????What makes lying such a compelling topic is that it is both much more complicated than it seems, and ultimately, the more you think about it, much less. We've all been in situations where lying seems acceptable, even preferred. Harris recounts one such instance, when a friend asked him, poolside, with wives present, Do you think I'm overweight? The poor guy was probably just looking for reassurance. Harris knows that. So why not proffer a harmless "white" lie?

????Because white lies are still lies. "And in telling them," Harris writes, "we incur all the problems of being less than straightforward in our dealings with other people. Sincerity, authenticity, integrity, mutual understanding -- these and other sources of moral wealth are destroyed the moment we deliberately misrepresent our beliefs, whether or not our lies are ever discovered."

????So Harris gave it to him straight. "No one would ever call you 'fat,'" he said, "but if I were you, I'd want to lose twenty-five pounds." Two months later, Harris's pal was down fifteen: "Neither of us knew that he was ready to go on a diet until I declined the opportunity to lie about how he looked in a bathing suit."

????Nice story, as far as it goes. But not all lies are equal. "People lie," Harris writes, "so that others will form beliefs that are not true. The more consequential the beliefs -- that is, the more a person's well-being demands a correct understanding of the world or of other people's opinions -- the more consequential the lie."

????Harris has no illusions about the power of truth-telling to rid big business of corruption. In fact, he says to Professor Harris, "I've begun to wonder … at what level the ethical problems we see in the world can best be addressed." The whistleblower who sacrifices career on the alter of truth already knows what Harris suspects -- that the difficulty lies "in creating systems that align people's priorities so that it becomes much easier for ordinary people to behave more ethically than they do when they are surrounded by perverse incentives."

????Which brings us back to J.P. Morgan Chase. The statement of facts agreed to in the settlement is a dense document. Nowhere does it say explicitly, for instance, that J.P. Morgan Chase knew it was peddling the financial equivalent of nitroglycerin, or that it hid that fact from its clients. But it does say this:

????J.P. Morgan Chase employees were "informed by due diligence vendors that a number of the loans included in at least some of the loan pools that it purchased and subsequently securitized did not comply with the originators' underwriting guidelines;" they understood "that a number of the properties securing the loans had appraised values that were higher than the values derived in due diligence testing;" they nevertheless "represented to investors ... that loans in the securitized pools were originated 'generally' in conformity with the loan originator's underwriting guidelines;" and they promised to "not include any loan in a pool being securitized 'if anything has come to [J.P. Morgan's] attention that would cause it to believe that the representations and warranties of a seller or originator will not be accurate and complete in all material respects ...'" Got that?

????CFO Marianne Lake took the question from the analyst and answered thusly: "First of all, we didn't say that we acknowledged serious misrepresentation of the facts. We would characterize the statement of facts differently than others might. We think it speaks for itself; it's publicly available. We do acknowledge the statement of facts but obviously don't admit to any violation of law …"

????Blah, blah, blah.

????Enough. I'll say it if she can't: J.P. Morgan Chase lied.