Assignment on Moral Limits to Market
Added on - 21 Apr 2020
Running head: MORAL LIMITS TO MARKETMoral Limits to MarketName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor note
1MORAL LIMITS TO MARKETMarket defines a place or relation directly attributable to commercial dealings. Moralsindicate kinds of ethical things and based on the principles of what is right or wrong. Firstwelfare theorem suggests that a competitive equilibrium ensures the condition of Paretooptimality. However, the market to be self sufficient needs to fulfill some basic conditions. Anyviolation of these conditions leads to market failure and calls for market intervention. Theefficiency of market is questioned whenever moral aspects are involved in trading behaviors.Classical Economists introduced the concept of market as an efficient means of allocatingnatural resources. Market defines an exchange relation between buyers and sellers using moneyas a medium of exchange. The conventional reliance on market faces the question that whetherthere are some things that money cannot buy. However, most commenter hardly believes thatmoney cannot buy everything in a world where the stretch of marketed relation is extended toalmost every sphere of life (Peacock 2015). Consider for example books. Earlier it is more likelyto be the case that in the bookstore, books are displayed only in the presence of customers,managers or proprietors assuming the books are to be of special interest. The situation haschanged now. Publishers now make payment to the bookstore owners to place their books inappropriate window. It becomes like a market of breakfast cereals, potato chips or pretzels wherethe groceries are paid to keep them in a favorable space in shelf. Another example pertaining tothis is provision of prison. In United States, private prisons have turned out as a profitablebillion-dollar industry. In modern world marketing, commercial advertising and branding is in agrowing trend indicating the expansion of market activities.Two moral objections are placed to market. The first argument is coercion. It indicatesthe unfair practices involve in buying and selling mechanism in situation of inequality or timesof dismal economic condition. The underlying argument is that market exchanges are not always
2MORAL LIMITS TO MARKETvoluntary as suggested by the sole supporters of market. For example, in times of crop failure, afarmer may agree to sell one of the organs to feed his unfed family but this is not voluntarymarket participation (Stucke 2014). The farmer is forced to take this decision realizing the needsof the situation.The second objection lies in the argument for corruption. Markets often have degradingeffect in exchange and valuation of specific goods and services. There are certain goods calledmoral or civic goods those are corrupted or diminished when valued in market. The traditionalbargaining cannot resolve the corruption problem. For example, the sales of the human body partare degrading in terms of intrinsic valuation. It is the violation of human body sanctity. Thesalesof kidney are then wrong for both rich and poor by the similar argument. The objection isjustified even on the ground of coercive effect of eliminating poverty (Sandel 2013).A different moral idea is explained with each of these arguments. The morality drawsfrom coercion argument lies on the ground of consent or fairness of background condition. Theargument is not against the entire market scenario. It is only applicable for market whereexchange is taken place in the presence of inequality or in condition of forceful bargaining(Brown 2014). It has no offense with commoditization of goods with a fair backgroundcondition.The morality rationale of corruption is unlike to that of the coercion. It is not about theconsent. The moral importance is at stake and degraded with involvement of exchange andmarket valuation. The moral glitches here cannot be filled even with resolving the issues in thebackground such as inequality or involuntary transaction. Hence, the corruption argument isintrinsic in nature. It holds equally both in situation of inequality and equality.