There is a lot to disagree with in the writings of Karl Marx,
but his analysis of capitalism is fairly comprehensive and he does offer useful
insights. One is that in capitalism, as
well as in any of the prevailing economic systems of past eras, the basic
principles of that system will permeate all the institutions that make up the
social infrastructure of a society. Back
in the middle ages, for example, the doctrines of the Catholic Church, which
supported the feudalistic system, permeated all the institutions of European
societies. Today, the prevailing
economic system is capitalism and we have a similar intrusion. We see this in how different aspects of life
have taken on the structure and processes of markets.
In terms of the concerns of this blog, the mental construct
that promotes and supports this bias toward markets is the natural rights
construct. It is this construct that
bolsters the idea and ideal that each of us as individuals can pursue those
things we determine as valuable. A
worthy bias but one that, when radicalized, can be shortsighted and detrimental
to legitimate communal interests. A
noted writer, Michael J. Sandel, looks into this ever increasing trend in our
national social intercourse.
In his book, What Money
Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets,
he reports on the questionable practices that have developed in this area. Early in the book, he offers several examples
of what some might consider inappropriate market offers; let me share a couple
of these:
·
A prison cell upgrade: $82 per night.
In Santa Ana, California, and some other cities, nonviolent offenders
can pay for better accommodations – a clean, quiet jail cell, away from the
cells for nonpaying prisoners. …
·
The services of an Indian surrogate mother
to carry a pregnancy: $6,250.
Western couples seeking surrogates increasingly outsource the job to
India, where the practice is legal and the price is less than one-third the
going rate in the United States.[1]
People have suggested paying students to do their
assignments, and if you apply your imagination, you could probably come up with
questionable and, in some cases, distasteful market exchanges.
This is a topic I want to revisit in the future. In the meantime, let me ask you to keep your
eyes and ears open to note such cases.
Overall, I would say that each questionable marketization of a product
or service that falls beyond the limits we have had in place is a case which
undermines certain degrees of obligation or other senses of sanctity in those
areas we hold to be sacred or otherwise important. When you can sell something, it becomes akin
to a commodity. We got rid of slavery,
but are we ready to give up on other honored advantages? As Sandel points out: “Today, the logic of buying and selling no
longer applies to material goods alone but increasingly governs the whole of
life. It is time to ask whether we want
to live this way.”[2]
No comments:
Post a Comment