I am trying to think of some cogent response to the professor.. I have none.. I am one of those 'deal' seekers that want to stay ignorant of the moralities of my 'deals'.. but he has made me think about my future purchases.We'd rather not know. Most of us are consumers who try to get the best possible deals in the market. Most of us are also moral beings who try to do the right things in our communities and societies. Unfortunately, our market desires often conflict with our moral commitments. So how do we cope with this conflict? All too often, we avoid it.
...
To be sure, some consumers do shop with an eye to these far-removed moral consequences, and some companies pride themselves on selling goods and services produced in socially and morally responsible ways. But the evidence shows that most consumers want only the great deals. Even if we like to associate ourselves with responsible brands, most of us don't want to pay any extra for responsible products.
The market does not corrode our character. Rather, in these two ways it enables us to shield ourselves from any true test of our character. It thereby allows us to retain our moral ideals even when our market choices generate outcomes that would otherwise violate them.
If the market mechanism were so transparent that we could not avoid knowing the moral effects of our buying decisions, presumably we would then have to choose either to sacrifice some material comforts for the sake of our ideals or to sacrifice those ideals in order to have the comforts. That would be a true test. Absent such transparency, we don't need to sacrifice either. We can get the great deals and simultaneously retain our moral scruples without breaking a sweat.
Does the Free Market Corrode Moral Character?
My blog friend Alex asks this question and points us to the Templeton website that also asks that same question to several 'experts'. The answer to the question that I liked most came from Robert B. Reich, a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. Here are a few excerpts from his answer:
11 comments:
I love to get comments and usually respond. So come back to see my reply. You can click here to see my comment policy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's interesting that he points out how we choose to keep ourselves ignorant of the ramifications of buying products (which have different degrees of environmental or social costs attached to them). I saw this one guy on Ted Talks (wish I could remember his name!) who had the idea of using barcodes to bring up this information on a product. So, consumers would have hand-held devices they would carry through the store and you could find out all sorts of other "costs" (or "benefits") that aren't reflected in the number on the price tag. And then their moral choice is more informed. However, consumers have to actually *care* first. I don't think most want to.
ReplyDeleteI think Robert B. Reich has the right idea, but I'm afraid I agree with you. For over a year now our Government has been advertising on TV for us to "Buy New Zealand." But our locally made goods are expensive compared to, say, Chinese clothing, etc. And because incomes are low we buy the cheaper goods. That's natural. With the change of Government last month they are stopping this advertisement because they say its a waste of time. Morally its not, but in reality it is. - Dave
ReplyDeleteInteresting to think about. But, as a person who owns a retail establishment, when I saw the headline, I thought the article was coming from the perspective of being the retailer and the conflict we have between profitability and doing the right thing. For example, I sell hair care products. I often get people wanting me to tell them my products are snake oil and can cure all of their ills.
ReplyDeleteI think when it comes to being consumers many of us choose to remain ignorant of the implications of our purchases. I know I do at times. I try to to do the right thing for purchases that don't inconvenience me too much. I've been buying CFL bulbs, I avoid shopping at Wal-Mart. But, I still use plastic grocery bags.
I think there is a lot of truth to what Mr. Reich has said. It's rather cynical though to say that most don't want to know. It seems to me that it's a matter of prioritizing for most of the people I have talked to about this. Managing our own personal resources is the first step to being a responsible consumer. Once that concern is met, I think people often make the best choices they can. The information available online and the # of people that look into these things - enough to drive marketers to respond - indicate this desire to know.
ReplyDeleteAlso, do you think that overuse of credit is really what corrodes character and the free market?
ReplyDeleteI tend to side with Missy's last question. I think irresponsible credit has been the single largest factor in moral fiscal failure and its corrosion has gone far deeper into the American culture than we realize. A reasonable and responsible home mortgage is an investment - taken care of, the home should at least hold its value and possibly appreciate in a stable economy. In contrast, placing a 52" HDTV on your credit card when you know you can't pay it off at the end of the month is insanity. The TV loses value when you open the carton. The consumer mentality in a credit-glutted society is a formula for an economic crisis ... Hey! Wait a minute ...
ReplyDeleteAgree with the idea that the overuse of credit corrodes moral character. But the corrosion brought on by the free global market (IMO) is bigger than the overuse of credit. I think that the use of cheap quazi-slave labor to manufacture cheap goods is a bigger issue. The global playing field is simply not a level one.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very complex issue. I have a friend who serves in China. He says that the people do not see themselves as victims of 'slave labor'. If it weren't for their cheap production competitive models, many of the billion plus Chinese would be without jobs and starving. That doesn't justify it ... but it sure complicates the issue. It's difficult to level the playing field when our unionized production people have been getting $20-$35 per hour plus benefits. Third-world countries cannot possibly begin to match such wages.The inequities run both ways.
ReplyDeleteGreat perspective Ken. Leveling the playing field is relative to geography.
ReplyDeleteI imagine the playing field will eventually level out as more and more jobs are outsourced overseas.. once the employment pendulum swings far enough we will be unable to import the amount of goods to sustain workers in China because we will not have the jobs to sustain the purchase power needed.
For sure there have been a lot of changes in my (our) lifetime. When I was a kid, I worked on a vegetable farm crawling in the muckfields for 40 cents an hour. When I turned 16 I got a real job pumping gas for $1 an hour. A couple of years ago an acquaintance of mine who is a blue collar worker on a GM assembly line told me he liked working holidays - when he did, he made $1 a minute! That's just wages. He's also getting a full healthcare package and a healthy retirement account. Then, after he retires, he continues to get health coverage 'til he dies. How long do we expect the Big Three to keep going when they have to continiue to pay benefits for all of their hundreds of thousands of retirees?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great question Ken..
ReplyDelete"How long do we expect the Big Three to keep going when they have to continiue to pay benefits for all of their hundreds of thousands of retirees?"
..one that we can also ask about our government and social security / medicare benefits. Maybe if companies and our government actually saved/invested for the future things would be different. Unfortunately the big three is no better than our government.. they pay out retiree expenses out of current incomes instead of monies they set aside when the retirees were still working.
Not sure if it is immoral but is sure is stupid.