Sandel’s THE MORAL LIMITS OF MARKETS

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Sandel’s the Moral Limits of Markets
Sandel makes a distinction between the market economy and market society. The distinction aims at showing the difference between the two aspects. Whereas the element of a market economy is in itself a good and useful tool in the realization of productivity in the market, a market society is an aspect in which aspects of the market seep into everyday human activities. The meaning of the distinction is that a market economy is different from a market society in that the market society becomes a culture in human relations but the market economy is effective in ensuring productivity in the markets (Sandel 20).
Sandel argues that markets, being made the consummate judge of societal values, have corrupted society’s capacity for an honest social attitude and decision making because markets tend to be corrosive regarding the attitudes the exchange of certain goods and services promotes. The lack of a proper and well-reasoned political debate on the aspects of life is the one that has corrupted the ability to make appropriate and honest political decisions. He explains that some goods should not be treated as sources of profits, as such use will damage the attitudes that such goods are associated with. One of the examples Sandel gives is that of paying children to read books. He argues that this action will change the attitude of these children towards learning from that of acquiring knowledge and intrinsic satisfaction to that of a chore.

Another example is that of selling seats in the freshmen class to the lofty bidders in a college, which he argues that it will erode the integrity of the college and devalue its diploma programs. Getting foreign mercenaries to fight wars, he claims, will degrade the meaning of citizenship and patriotism. Sandel, therefore, argues that making markets the arbiter of values in society will corrupt the positive attitude towards certain aspects of the community (Sandel 17). The above examples show that if the market is left to control all aspects of human life, it will corrupt and degrade certain aspects of human life and society, therefore, ought to decide the limits for markets.
From Sandel’s view, we get to know that solely commercialized consumer attitude when it comes to political and social decision-making, it can easily influence their entire public life. He tries to use some illustrations to put across his arguments. One of the examples Sandel uses is that of jumping queues. Another example he uses is that of incentives like payment for sterilization and selling rights to immigrate. Another illustration used by Sandel is that of hired friends, auctioned college admissions and bought apologies. Paying kids to read books and acquiring foreign mercenaries, he argues, is destructive of public life. Sandel, through these illustrations, argues that the purely commercialized approach towards such aspects is degrading to public life. For instance, auctioning college admissions is detrimental to public life as it denies a chance to the poor, hiring mercenaries degrades the meaning of citizenship (Sandel 17). These actions degrade public life as they result in unfair and corrupt practices. They tend to reduce social welfare and increase the gap between the rich and the poor.
I concur with Sandel when he argues that money should not have the power to purchase everything. For instance, the purchasing power of money should not be adopted or used to purchase friendships, human organs, babies, blood, sex, health, university degrees, procreation and sports awards. If bought, such goods become corrupted.
I agree with the argument that the society has become corrupted by the ability of money to purchase everything. The fact that money has been made the measure of everything has resulted in the degradation of public life. Goods that should not be bought for money are now offered for sale and have been made commodities by the purchasing power of money. The effects of such goods being treated as commodities have resulted in degradation of their value and that of life at large. For instance, being able to buy babies degrades their value. Some aspects of life should be determined chiefly through public dialogue rather than commercialized consumption. Some of these aspects include family life, friendships, education, sex, procreation, health, citizenship, and sports (Sandel 376). These areas should not be commercialized or left to the markets to control them; they should rather be decided primarily by public discourse rather than private consumption because privatizing them degrades their nature and corrupts public life. The market can bring us to the public good if the good is not defined by its public understanding.
 

Work Cited
Sandel, Michael J. “What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets.” Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21 (2000): 87-122.