This paper responds to Kenneth Ewert's 1989 essay "Moral Criticisms of the Market," examining the debate over whether free markets should be evaluated on moral grounds or by their economic performance and viability. The paper engages Ewert's critique of the Christian left's moral objections to market capitalism and supports his position that the market functions as an economic mechanism rather than a moral institution. Drawing also on CiĹĽewska's observation that markets carry both good and bad consequences, the paper argues that moral shortcomings attributed to the free market are more properly understood as features of human nature than of the market system itself.
In his argument, Ewert writes, "In their eyes, the justness and morality of an economic system are vastly more important than its efficiency" (Ewert, 1989, p. 103). This does seem to be a valid concern, especially considering how bloated and inefficient the economy, the national budget, and even the stock market have become in recent times. The stock market has reached record highs, and yet the broader economy appears to be in a downturn. The stock market is also increasingly tied to the global economy, making it far more precarious and difficult to evaluate on efficiency grounds alone.
However, Ewert argues that this moral framing is misguided. Rather than judging the market by moral guidelines—as the Christian left does—he contends that the market should be judged by its success and viability. The free market is an economic system, not a moral system. Morals come into play in keeping the market fair and honest, but the market is primarily a mechanism of finance rather than social concern, and it should be judged accordingly. Ewert makes several arguments along this line, pointing out weaknesses in the Christian left's assessment of market fundamentals. On balance, this position seems more balanced, honest, and correct.
A separate discussion reinforces this assessment. As one journalist observes, "[T]he market as such does not have moral features and its functioning can carry with itself both good and bad consequences" (Ciżewska, 2007). Both of these assessments appear sound. A person can view any system through whatever lens he or she chooses. Some will always see the free market as a capitalistic and corrupt way of doing business, while others regard it as the only viable foundation for a free economy. The market functions more like a machine than like a moral social institution. As Ewert notes, "Its alleged moral shortcomings turn out to be things which are common to mankind" (Ewert, 1989, p. 109)—a point that is difficult to dispute. Attributing human failings to the market system itself conflates the behavior of participants with the structure of the mechanism they operate within. Understanding this distinction is essential to any honest political-economic analysis.
The free market is best understood as an economic mechanism whose outcomes—both good and bad—reflect human nature rather than any moral design inherent in the system itself. Judging the market primarily on moral grounds, as the Christian left proposes, misidentifies the source of economic shortcomings and obscures the criteria by which a market's true performance should be measured.
You’re 88% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.