Analysis Of Ken Ewert's Moral Criticisms Of The Market

In the article, Ken lays out the primary liberal arguments about what free market breeds which include selfishness, materialism, impersonalism/individualism, and economic power. Ken then breaks down each part by describing the perceived threat to Christian

What Money Can’t Buy; The Moral Limits of Market by Michael Sandel argues the relationship between markets and our morality. His central concern is the influence of money on the sphere of life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms such as rights as a citizen, care for others, and civic duties. He demonstrated that market is responsible for destroying our sense of morality by placing monetary value to it. This paper will argue the relationship between market and morality through demonstrating the type of goods corrupted by money, the flaws in the market system that causes such problems, and the political solution for this problem as suggested by Michael Sandel respectively.

Your analysis of Ewert’s article and contrast between his views of the free-market in contrast to the Christian Socialist’s argument was clear and concise. You correctly pointed out that the free-market does not itself encourage a self-serving attitude. In reality, a planned economy is based upon what a select few decide is in the best interest of the people. There is no incentive for working hard because their wealth is evenly distributed amongst the entire community. It is not the will of the people that decide how their money is spent, it is a select few who no doubt will not be living on the same level as the rest of the people. As human beings, it’s difficult to fathom that everyone would be satisfied with such stagnation while the majority

As seen throughout the semester, the debates surrounding capitalism and its role in society are extensive and transcends generations. By virtue of the nature of debates, two broad positions on capitalism evolved in North American Protestantism – one position defends capitalism while the other protests capitalism. The defense of capitalism developed in the 19th century. Being one of the many authors to do so, Charles Sellers attributes the development of capitalism to the Market and Industrial Revolution (Sellers, 21). Consequently, the Second Great Awakening increased religious awareness and significance in the daily lives of Americans (Sellers, 202). Sellers argues it was only through religion that Americans could cope with the stresses of

We currently live in a market society that is completely different from past societies. In market society, the society is a system of self-regulating market as a whole (Polanyi 43). People are needed to act and think in particular ways for the market society to function (Polanyi 68). For instance, people in market society believe that economic relations are more needed than interpersonal relations (Polanyi 44). Polanyi calls the emergence of market society “the great transformation”. My thesis is the change to market society is a fundamental transformation due to market society being characterized by self-regulation, fictitious commodities and an emphasis on individuals, which are considerably different from past societies. A number of the differences that take place under the workplace in the system of market society will also be shown. Furthermore, the thoughts that people have about the world in market society will be explained by pointing out the association between the “spirit of capitalism” and the “protestant work ethic”. Lastly, the reasons why these ideological conditions are essential to the emergence of market society will be provided.

Stapleford presents a strong analysis of economic issues with a Christian perception that aligns with Biblical truths. He urges his audience to avoid the temptation of idolatry and materialism but to live a selfless life of sacrifice. Stapleford claims that “there is sanctity in all of labor, and without God’s involvement human labor is futile. In whatever we do, Christians are to do it heartily as unto the Lord, for we do not labor for the food that perishes but for the food that endures to everlasting life” (Stapleford, 2009).

Material and ideological conditions are present in the modern society and those before, each influencing the other. Material conditions determine an individual’s way of life, the wages they collect, and how such earnings determine social class. It is through ideological conditions that ideas derive, which give birth to the ways civilization behaves and operates. This paper will look at a series of theoretical works by Karl Polanyi, James Rinehart, Max Weber, and Robert Heilbroner, deliberating the market society and its progression in relation to the material and ideological conditions that are constantly transforming throughout societies pivotal points in history. Each theorist offers excellent insight into the modes of production and

Free markets have often been idealized in the US, and have become a dominant tool for trade and distribution of goods and services. There have been multiple waves of government regulation and deregulation of the market in US history. Each of these trends have been grappling with the central question of how sufficient markets are at satisfying our goals. In theory, free markets are fair and efficient at distributing goods and services. In reality, however, government must intervene in the marketplace for two overarching reasons. First, because in practice free markets left to themselves are not always fair and efficient. And second, because fairness and efficiency are not our only goals and

One topic subject to never-ending debate that is reviewed, revised, then and disputed among scholars, is the market and the economy. In the book, "The Mind and The Market" by Jerry Muller (2002), he discusses the different viewpoints of scholars about capitalism in the market and the influence society holds on it. This writing is comprised of summaries of several reviews from a variety of authors, which will include their viewpoints, their criticism, and an overall review from Muller 's work. These authors include Brian Fox, Patrick Murray, Charles Tilly, and Fritz Ringer. Each author originates from respected and prestigious journals from different universities, programs, and other education systems. All intellectuals are experts in their field of study with a background in either philosophy, history, or economy, making their viewpoints meaningful, insightful, and relevant. Following the summary of each review will be a comparison and contrasting piece, continuing into an evaluation addressing if they captured the book in an appropriate way. Concluding the essay will have an input of my own personal review of the book. As shown, the reviews vary with their personal opinions regarding the positives and negatives of Muller 's work.

Early in the article, Gant quotes an advocate of greed’s benefits to society to set the tone of the article, then shortly after says “To set the record straight, greed is never good”. Gant then asserts that markets function because of people’s cooperation, and that unmitigated greed would undermine those markets. It is also noted that while capitalism is able to channel greed into more constructive outlets, and that greed may be “less destructive under capitalism”, it is “still not ‘good’”. He then makes a distinction between greed and self-interest, in which greed is exclusive to one’s self, whereas self-interest “encompass[es] loved ones, friends, strangers or even enemies.” He went on to argue that so long as actions are not at the expense of others, they are not greed, but innocent self-interest (Gant).

Capitalism has been the subject of ethical criticism since it was first introduced into society. I defend the morality of capitalism because it gives people incentive to work, establishes a web of trust between them, satisfies their material well-being, and generates a wide spectrum of prosperity.

Capitalism started up as a system of investing and sharing money in order to increase the value of resources in the future. Capitalism was just an economic system, but then soon turned into a complex system of ethical practices. Harari defines capitalism as, “a set of teachings about how people should behave, educate their children and even think” (Harari 314). This economic system evolved along with the people that were endorsing it. Capitalism enables the rich to get richer, while the poor continue to get poorer. There are many benefits to capitalism, but there are downfalls as well, and these downfalls tend to be masked because of the rapid speed capitalists grow at. Harari first presents a definition for capitalism, and soon goes into great detail on why capitalism, while fast paced and unforgiving, is able to stand unwavered while other productions fail.

The free-market embodies the ideals set forth by Adam Smith. The free market is different from other markets in that it allows its participants to purse their own interests rather than requiring the dictation of a government or ruler. This pursuit of self-interest causes a

The fact that free markets are based on a contractual agreement between the buyer and seller with very little government control makes it feasible to consider it to be compatible with individual freedom. (Free Market: 2014) Classical liberals may agree with the objectives of free markets, as they emphasise the importance of individual freedom with limited control of the state. (Hagopian)The counter argument is that when the free market economy is fuelled by profit motives, it sacrifices some ethical and economic issues which can cause severe consequences. (Gerald Hanks: 2014) Modern Liberals argue that although individual freedom is important, coercion can be used as a positive outlook of bettering individuals to the best of their ability.

In economics, some classical liberals believe that ‘’an unfettered market’’ is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses. The minimal government advocacy of an ‘’unregulated free market’’ is founded on an ‘’assumption about individuals being rational, self-interested and methodical in the pursuit of their goals. Adam Smith was not an advocate of pure capitalism. Adam Smith allowed for many exceptions to a strictly free-market economy. The classical liberals advocated policies to increase liberty and prosperity. They sought to empower the commercial class politically. They abolish royal charters, monopolies and the protectionist policies of mercantilism to encourage