 |
| Prof. Sandel |
Here is a link to that article:
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.3/ndf_michael_j_sandel_markets_morals.php
As I read through the article, a more fundamental question occurred to me - is there anything such as ‘morality’ at all – or is morality just a thin layer of rationalization in a world that is really a jungle?
Should a society help old and frail people? Should society help sick? Should society help orphans?
If we accept, that people do not step up to do big things - what sort of a culture is it that let's these people just suffer or die. ("They don't have money, the market did not help them - so we let them die").
Does a privileged person have more rights than a non-priveleged person? And if we take the logic to either extreme - what sort of a society is that. In other words, if the answer is yes - than you have king, earls and subjects. If the answer is no, then you have communism (in each of the extremes).
We live in societies and have elaborate laws, rules and customs codified over thousands of years that govern our behavior. There are two ways of looking at this. One is, is there a way in which we can organize ourselves where the greatest good can be provided to the greatest number of people (not 100% good to 100% of people - that is impossible). That is the 'utilitarian' view. In this equation, you can ask in general are people in Ethiopia better off than people in Somalia?
Another way of asking the same question is, regardless of outcome, are certain things right, and other things wrong? For example, do I have right to own property? In war-time certain rights might be taken away, such as due process. But is right to property fundamental? In this regard is the capitalist system better than socialist? Again not black or white or 0% or 100% - but relatively, which is better?
It is perhaps an error to say, i) people are selfish, ii) strong rule over the weak, iii) different cultures are different - therefore, there is no room for morals.
Rather, there might be universals, such as i) Parents want to care for their children (even among animals), ii) People want to protect their homes and their families, iii) people want to be on a winning team (read: growing economy).
A good system will take these positive impulses and construct around it, while minimizing the damage from the darker side of human nature. It is a question of balance I suppose - how do you balance the greater good vs the individual rights?
However, all this still feels transactional. If you and your neighbor agree not to hurt each other out of mutual self-interest that is an implicit contract. But is that morality?
11 comments:
There are very different types of markets and I would say the opportunity for moral impropriety is different in each. I think the answer is a unequivocal no for basic goods and services, like a haircut. Very difficult to build an “inefficient” market for these
Then there are more complex transactions that involve asymmetric information like real estate, used cars and financial products. The information asymmetry is natural (not a product of any firm’s doing) and easily susceptible to fraudulent activity. These markets require regulation to ensure the information asymmetry isn’t used “unfairly”
Other markets intersect with morality and I won’t touch those. Everyone has a different line in the sand with these markets often creating a price premium to attract supply (think of the oldest occupation ever) but still accessibility without government intervention as a firm will pop up to serve the lowliest of niche markets (think crack)
This article picks a lot of goods that challenge classic and neo-classic economic models, like upward sloping demand curves for behaviors (like a premium brand). This is where psychology and behavioral finance step in. Bottom line is we are not all Super-Economen that behave “rationally” at every turn and that is really hard for neo-classic econ.
On your last question I think it is two sides of the same coin. I probably would have thought it is really a jungle until our child was born. Now I see an inherent shyness and need to conform to a group in people that I think forms the basis for morals, some of which are rationalized away by the human mind by necessity or even framing.
Let me start with two examples.
1. Some cultures leave the elderly and disabled in remote snow area to slowly die.
2. In a different era, kings and leaders used to torture enemies and condemned ones and allowed them to die slowly.
Even in nature, the stronger always bullies the weaker and often eats it. So, different eras and different societies have different moral codes and levels of compassion. But they are seldom followed.
Recently, I have seen prisons ( in a video) in Norway. They live in two bed room apartments ( the extra one for the visitors ) with color TV, refrigerator and so on. They can go out and come as and when they want.
Most of the citizens who are law abiding in poor countries lead a far far worse life than these criminals.
So, to my mind, universal justice is tough to find in reality.
The strong and wealthy enjoy the privileges and the weak seldom get a chance.
UMS Kolluri:
It is estimated that there are 80 million living things on this planet with different set of skills for survival, armed with physical strength, size, horns, poison etc. They use these faculties for food, shelter and survival. But, if one outsmarts the other - kills, eat and survive, it is doing a very legitimate job while the other perishes.
If this is the law of nature, mankind as it evolved over centuries, brought its own civilization and made set of rules in different societies. What may be good in one society may not necessarily be acceptable in another place. Therefore, there is nothing like one set of rule applying to all. The dictum that 'all are equal and bound by the same set of rules', according to me, is a myth. I personally feel, the entire Seven Billion or more population constitute that many characters with different size, height, color, health [genetics] thinking, background, skill set, opportunity etc. We are made to believe that, we all should behave in a pattern. But, left to themselves, they can go wild not conforming to the 'accepted' behavior.
Having said that, there are in built morals in the law of nature. A lion does not kill an animal when it is not hungry. Many examples suggest a great eco balance in the nature. When it comes to human beings, the set of eco balancing in economic terms are violated too frequently to amass wealth and power beyond their need. Here I quote Mahatma Gandhi -
"There is enough in the world for everybody’s need, but not enough for greed of a few"
The bold comparisons of the survival skills of the vegetable vendor in rural India vs Lehman brothers' lack thereof gives a sudden jolt. As he says, there is a lot to learn from these enterprising folks who manage to stay afloat during troubling times and they don't have an MBA. However, the collapse of the big corporations was due to the action/inaction of a small group of people who didn't do their job right and/or consumed by greed. After all, Lehman has endured a lot of such economic upheavals since the Civil War era - the collapse was triggered by actions that occurred probably within the last decade. Of late, we are seeing more and more of such instances, unfortunately.
Speaking of 'human capital' makes me recall the remarks of the Ex-President of the company I used to work for, more than 18 years ago. New to this country, we were awaiting our first visit to our respective clients. During one such orientation, he was mentioning to us that we were akin to 'Products'. They will send us to the clients for 2 weeks' and if the client wasn't happy, we would be returned back to the 'store'!
Satisfaction guaranteed or full refund!
Indeed a brilliant discussion. Prison upgrade, Forehead leasing, and other examples of commodification of everyday life were all fascinating. I was also wondering what the answer would have been in India for the question that Michael Sandel asked in China (shovel price). Harish concept of decentralize and replicate rather than scale up as a philosophy is interesting.
You're morphing into a "progressive"! The "how do you balance the greater good vs the individual rights" Q is the basis, of course, of the Liberal/Democrat vs. Conservative/Republican tug-of-war. Since we need both, this will always result in an imperfect compromise. Matter of degrees. Obama and team are steamrolling toward the greater good and the Republicans do not accept a shred of it -- to their great disadvantage.
(Btw, I think you mean "utopian," not "utilitarian," right?)
I suppose it’s good that Sandel is popularizing Bells’ work. And it is something that both conservatives and progressives can agree on (if not many libertarians).
Though it’d be nice if he complimented it with what might at first seem contradictory but is not – the deeply moral case for markets and free enterprise.
That is an excellent point - he starts with the assumption that all are sold on the virtues of markets.....
Yep. Instead, he should point out that all good things can be abused. Markets are the best means divined by men for establishing prices and the allocation of resources that result from this information.
But we are neither homo economicus nor defined by our stuff.
Being rational is good. But it can become Rationalism when taken to extremes. Another trope comes from those who see the limits of Rationalism, and become anti-Rationalists.
Moderation in all things, said Petronius, including moderation.
Very good speech by Michael Sandel - made more engaging by so much participation from the audience!
Of particular importance are the 2 examples of abrupt attitude change among people - a) the small Swiss townfolks' sacrificial mentality changes to a business motive once money is offered to dump nuclear waste in their hamlet, and b) people feeling guilty about coming late to pick up their kids at the Israeli day-care center developing a sudden careless attitude and an entitlement mentality when the center announces a fee for taking care of the kids! What interesting species we are!
Let me add something of my own that is almost relevant to this topic.
Few days after Hurricane Sandy, I took it upon myself to drive 75+ miles to work in NYC (each way) for a couple of days since all forms of public transport were suspended. The problem was that NYC instituted a 3-person minimum to enter into the city regardless of which way you took - bridge or tunnel. They didn't want more people to come into the city and cause more mess than what was already present. One of my colleagues was readily available and I had to pick him up enroute. The challenge was to find the third person. We started off with the train staion closest to his home. The place was completely deserted but luckily we spotted one Chinese lady waiting for the train. Obviously she had no clue that it would never arrive. As I drove closer, my colleague got off the car, approached her and here is how the conversation went...
My Colleague: Are you waiting to go to New York?
Lady: Yes.
Coll: Would you like to join us? We're going to NYC.
Lady (eagerly): Yes. How much?
Coll: No, it is free. You don't have to pay us anything.
At this point, the lady drew back, smilingly replied 'No' and walked away!
Clearly she felt that the free-ride that we offered was not worth the risk! The agonizing part was that we combed through 3 stations to get the third person. We finally found a stranded guy who joined us and made us feel as though we were sent from heaven :-)
Susee - That was a nice story! When something is offered free, and one gets get help from unexpected quarters, one is reluctant as it appears too good to be true.
Post a Comment