Should people be able to pay to get to the head of the line in public facilities, such as airports? To drive alone in carpool lanes for a fee? Or to quit smoking or lose weight? Should having money determine who gets first access to emergency rooms or transplants for kidneys? Does everything in life have a price tag on it? This is a very provocative concept, as our society continues to modernize and advance, money seems to become the answer to all our problems. Money has helped our society thrive and get us to where we are today, but it’s now to the point where someone can buy themselves through life. Life is beyond our earnings and there needs to be a sense of morality when it comes to putting a price tag on particular things.
I watched a video of Michael Sandel, where he discussed his book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. He elaborated on what’s happened once we’ve shifted from having a market economy into a market society. A market society is where almost everything is up for sale, and eventually becomes a way of our everyday life, such as our family, personal relations, health, education, civic life, and/or politics. The first problem with more things being up for sale is there’s more hardship that is faced by the poor. If all inequality meant was the rich having a nice car or going on vacation inequality wouldn’t be as suffering, but putting a price tag on everything makes it more and more difficult to be poor. Money governs access in our world today such as the location you live, if you can send your kids to a good school or a not-very-good school, or even what political voice you’re capable of having (Sandel 2013). The more life is commodified, the how much money someone has will unequally let them thrive more than they would otherwise, while at the same time holding back the people without as much money (Sandel 2013). The second reason to worry about becoming a market society is the tendency to crowd out or erode non-market values that are worth caring about. One of the examples Sandel gave exploring this concept was the policies that enable people to buy and sell certain kinds of quotas. He talked about how during the Civil War there was an advertisement for money to take a person's place after being drafted to fight. In terms of economic reasoning, both parties are better off. This transaction is worth it for the person hiring the substitute (for obvious reasons) and financially worth it for the person who agreed to serve in his place, but this is a pretty controversial topic on whether that’s morally right or wrong. Sandel went on to talk about how we can’t pay someone to go into jury duty for us, or we aren’t allowed to buy people’s votes from them; he proceeded to say that if when we think there’s a civic duty, naturally there will be hesitation in allowing people to sell off or hire other people to fulfill specific duties that have some other higher value at stake.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Sandel also discussed two implications for the way we do economics that need to be considered. Economists often assume markets as being inert; they don’t taint, touch, or change the goods, they exchange them. In regards to material goods like flat-screen TVs, this is true. Depending on whether there is a market relationship, if you sell a flat-screen TV or get it as a gift, it will work the same either way and the value of the TV won’t vary (Sandel 2013). The same isn’t true when we’re talking about health, education, environment, respect for the community, cultures of people, civic duties, etc., in cases like these subjecting social practices to market valuation and exchange may change their meaning and character of the goods (Sandel 2013). This may happen by crowding out market values, and norm attitudes worth caring about. Then to decide where markets belong and where they don’t, it’s not enough to engage in economics as if it were a value-neutral science in choice (Sandel 2013). Economics has presented itself since the early 20th century as a value-neutral science of choice, but market reasoning and market practices crowd out values, nonmarket goods, and norm attitudes (Sandel 2013). We have to question in any given instance where we would use a market mechanism, what are the goods at stake in the practice, and whether they are civic, cultural, environmental, or communal goods. Also, we have to ask will marketizing these goods drive them out or diminish/erode them? This is a big implication for economics, which has to reconnect with its origins in political and moral philosophy. Classic economists such as Adam Smith and Karl Marx understood economics as a subfield of moral and political philosophy (Sandel 2013). As the influence of markets increases in the spheres of our social life, that moral philosophy branch needs to be reconnected back to economics. Another consequence of marketizing goods that drive out certain attitudes and norms worth caring about is our public discourse has become empty of larger meaning. Politics have become narrowly mannered and technocratic with constant arguing on cable TV, talk radio, and the floor of Congress (Sandel 2013). Many people suspect this is because too many people believe too deeply in their moral conviction, Sandel thinks that it’s the opposite, the reason the public discourse is so impoverished is that it fails to engage with larger questions, like how to value goods the social goods embodied in the practices from health to education to environment to civic life, etc. We can’t just shy away from engaging directly in arguments about the meaning of goods in public life. The reason we are so commonly avoiding these issues is these are controversial judgments people disagree about and then we reach for a public discourse that’s empty of these big questions (Sandel 2013). The rise of market reasoning is a part of the appeal of market reasoning and it seems to offer a value-neutral way to make social choices that seems to spare the need to engage in the debate about the character of goods (Sandel 2013). This is a false promise because it’s led to the hollowing out and emptiness of public discourse. This could be an explanation of why citizens of democracies around the world are frustrated to reconnect with big questions regarding public discourse about economics (Sandel 2013). It’s the only way we will be able to decide in a democratic society where the market serves the public good and where they don’t belong. Engaging with big things that don’t involve technocratic or managerial talk is another way to elevate the terms of our public discourse (Sandel 2013). Everyone doesn’t have to agree that we have a morally more robust kind of public discourse, but to make this democracy better, we will have to cultivate habits of listening and learning from one another even when disagreements persist (Sandel 2013). We may develop a keener sense of the price we pay for drifting towards a society where everything is up for sale.
I believe there should be moral limits on the market. Shifting from a market economy into a market society hurts society. The poor will continue to fall further back, and the inequality gap will continue to grow when things beyond market goods have a price tag on them. There’s also a tendency to erode or crowd out nonmarket values that are worth caring about. Policies that enable people to buy and sell certain kinds of quotas are very controversial and these should be addressed and put a limit on. Economists need to reconnect with moral and political philosophy as classical economists did so. Markets aren’t inert when talking about non-market goods such as health, education, environment, cultures of people, civic duties, and respect for the community. We can’t subject these social practices to market valuation and exchange them because they change their meaning and the character of the good. There also needs to be a larger question on the meaning of our moral purpose which includes questions about how to value social goods from health, education, and environment to civic life. We need to address the big question about the character of goods and move away from a society where everything is for sale.
Stuck on your essay?
