Moral Criticisms of the Market Moral Criticisms

Moral Criticisms of the Market

Moral Criticisms Market This assignment requires read article Ken S. Ewert (found Reading & Study folder). Note article, Ewert defending free market "Christian Socialists." He states position a rebuttal

Moral criticisms of the market: A critique of Ewert's analysis

It is interesting to read Ken S. Ewert's 1989 criticisms of 'Christian socialists' in light of current debates on other types of economic policies today. Ewert portrays Christian, leftist defenders of socialism as impervious to logic, in contrast to other former critics of capitalism, who grew more acclimated to capitalist principles in light of the failure of the Soviet Union Similar criticisms are made of 21st century religious fundamentalists, who stress the need for private enterprise to address societal problems 'on principle,' even when public regulation might be helpful and who try to define science, including science education, in religious terms rather than in terms of logic. Ewert's essay takes the opposite point-of-view, arguing that it is moral liberals who refuse to think rationally.

Ewert attempts to make an argument for the 'moral' nature of capitalism, versus the moral nature of socialism. He states unequivocally that self-directed actions are "an inescapable part of human life," which is a premise that many Christians would disagree with: even if Christian salvation focuses on every human soul, great stress is placed upon the spiritual focus of this self-directed nature, versus material interests (Ewert 1989). Within the capitalist framework, Ewert argues that markets are superior because they are non-coercive and mutually beneficial. However, this is ultimately an 'ends justifies the means' argument, namely that self-interest is valid because it can theoretically produce a beneficial result.

Christianity, like most major religions, focuses upon intentionality of actions. Yes, a corporation may launch a sustainability platform in the interest of marketing its product, but the intention is utilitarian and to increase sales through good PR, not to 'do good' on an individual or a collective basis. This utilitarianism underlining capitalist altruism means that when it suits the company to pollute the environment or to produce a product of questionable consumer value (such as cigarettes or high fat food), it will do so to serve its ultimate, amoral objective in the capitalist system, which is to increase profits.

Under capitalism, the firm has only one major obligation: profitability. This is how the free market does define certain priorities over other moral objectives. If the general welfare of others is improved as a result of such actions, then kindness and generosity is acceptable. If not, however, the firm still has an obligation to produce a return for shareholders. It is true that self-interest exists within socialist societies but it is creating something of a 'straw man' to suggest that this means that the Christian socialists' arguments are wrong. Christian socialists are advocating a utopian vision that has not yet been realized upon this earth, one which is not analogous to what existed in the former Soviet Union.

It is also difficult to deny that markets depend upon the public's never-ending desire for material goods, often in a manner that has a negative effect on the environment because of the waste generated by conspicuous consumption. Ewert argues that materialism is merely a possible negative byproduct of capitalism but consider: is it really ever in a company's interest to ask you to buy less of its product? This dilemma is manifested in the output of many fast food companies, given that it is difficult to morally argue against the notion the portion size control of high-fat, high sugar items is beneficial for the public, yet these companies can make massive profits off of mega-sized sugary sodas and fried, starchy carbohydrates. Once again, it is true that materialism is not particular to modern capitalism, but it is difficult to argue that capitalism is dependent upon encouraging materialism to sustain itself, which calls into question its moral value.

Ewert even goes as far as to say that capitalism encourages rather than discourages interpersonal ties. However, these ties are based upon self-interested monetary exchanges rather than mutual concern. Using persons effectively as commodities (paying workers the minimum that can be allowed under law, or rewarding workers handsomely to benefit the business) often generates wealth. Although corporations may provide many benefits to employees thanks to transactional relationships, spanning from free food to the psychological uplift of work for employees, capitalism also has an exploitative potential when treating workers negatively can yield benefits. And, in fact, the much-praised 'focus on the family' and private enterprise in capitalism can justify such exploitation -- if earning money helps my family, even if it hurts other families, then it is 'moral' under a capitalist framework.