How does one evaluate the market economy from a moral and religious point of view? This was the question that Dr. Brendan Hogan, Assistant Professor at Pacific Lutheran University , addressed on January 8, 2006 , in Reidy Friendship Hall at 11:15 a.m. The philosophical and moral attitude toward a nation's economy has varied from country to country, in particular periods, and according to three major schools of ethics – Aristotle's, Kant's, and John Stuart Mill's – as they interact with history and culture. First, Aristotelian virtue ethics value the development of the human being over a lifetime. According to this philosophy, the rational human is a thinking and feeling being who habituates emotions; and human flourishing and self-realization are the components of happiness. We cannot achieve virtue and happiness in isolation. Thus, the market should serve the development of all human beings; one group should not have significantly more resources than another. In the duty ethics outlined by Kant, morality is based on rationality. Everyone knows what is right and wrong and is obliged to act accordingly. In this system, consequences are not as important as the reason for doing something. An example is Ted Turner's project to immunize African children. If he acted out of a duty to save children, this act is moral; if to ensure election results, it is immoral. Happiness has nothing to do with morality; intent has everything to do with it. Therefore, morality in the marketplace is based on individual intention. In the utilitarian ethics of John Stuart Mill, the moral good depends on an act's results. A moral act provides the greatest pleasure or reduces the greatest pain for the greatest number of people. Accordingly, the market is evaluated by how thoroughly it satisfies the most people. The effect of historical events presents some ironies in the evaluation of capitalism. The shift from feudalism to capitalism gave birth to the idea of individual freedom. Even though serfs were liberated, they had no place to go. So how moral was the grant of freedom without the support to manage and enjoy it? Even though the government controls many aspects of the market, it does not control life itself. The laws and the military produce changes in infrastructure that people must evaluate. People must integrate their religious beliefs with these changes. In this evolved system people are not equal. For example, employer and employee are neither equally experienced nor equally free. Contracts often favor the employer, who has more resources; therefore, these two groups are not on the same moral ground. The owner has enough food; the worker may not have sufficient food and so is forced to work for the owner in order to get some. Of course, the owner is dependent on workers to maintain his or her superior economic situation. So how do we evaluate the market economy today? The media provides the GNP as a quantitative value. The global economy reflects statistics and not necessarily the moral values of the participants. These attitudes are, however, changing. For example, Native Americans now like to drive and own property, something that was antithetical to their culture. Education now is focused on the ability to earn money, not on developing character and a love of learning for learning’s sake. The morality of the market economy depends upon the philosophical stance of the viewer. The events of history have also changed the values of the various cultures who participate in the market. There are no easy answers; it is a complex situation. |