On Markets and Morals—Helpful Perspective from Michael Sandel

For some time now, theologians have taken aim at the market economy and the moral and ethical problems it tends to pose. Such critiques have created a variety of viewpoints by which to understand market perils and the role of the market in daily life.  For example, we see lofty appeals for a noncompetitive economy in Kathryn Tanner’s Economy of Grace in contrast to a more implicit acceptance of standard democratic capitalism, such as John Atherton’s Christianity and the Market. The Radical Orthodoxy movement tends to emphasize economic justice in an ecclesial context, while liberation theology aims to express its ideals through social institutions. Some theological visions of the market simply aim to improve or supplement the capitalist system in order to create more socially just outcomes, while others call for a total re-conceptualization of a theological economy by advocating systems of distribution that close the gap between economic polarities.

While we see a degree of variation in these critiques, there are some common themes that emerge.  Outside of pro-market theologians (there are a few to be found), most decry market attributes such as hyper-consumerism, power relationships, and inequality. To summarize, markets marginalize—and this is anathema to a just theological vision of distribution and communal obligation.

Obviously this short summary does not capture the enormous amount of theological literature dealing with markets and morals. That said, and in light of this summary, Michael Sandel has provided an interesting critique of markets that will likely be of interest to the socially concerned theologian. While this is an area he has long given attention to, his 2012 release What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets asks the question: “What is wrong with a world where everything is for sale?”  Whereas theological appraisals of markets emphasize that “Markets marginalize,” Sandel has proclaimed “Markets leave their mark.” In other words, beyond inequality and fairness, Sandel asserts that markets don’t simply allocate goods, but they “express and promote certain attitudes toward the goods being exchanged” (9).

Sandel draws from the Aristotelian tradition where defining a good’s meaning (i.e., its telos) is a necessary first step before we think about its rightful use or distribution. While he offers innocuous examples such as paying children to read a book (thus changing how we value reading), more explicit illustrations of his point include prostitution or the sale of one’s virginity, advertising on a human forehead, creating tradable quotas for refugees or for the right to pollute, internet death pool gambling, or even a futures market in terrorist activity. Allowing for markets to infiltrate these otherwise non-market areas changes the norms of such goods, and thus devalues them (what he defines as degrading or corrosive).

Political philosopher Jonathan Wolff has remarked that for an economic system to exist and survive—it need not be optimal, just superior, to other alternatives. While there is a fruitful tradition in theological discourse questioning the “superiority” of markets (“Are market’s truly superior?”), Sandel has altered the question (“Superior in what?”). If we think of the economy as a mechanism to mobilize the productive forces, then markets have their place. This, however, is precisely the point: where is it appropriate to draw the boundaries for a market system? If markets infiltrate all aspects of our life, then technocratic decision-making reduces our deepest convictions, values, and moral and ethical considerations to the whims of some generalized cost-benefit analysis. As Sandel puts it, such thinking encourages us to think of ourselves less as citizens, and more as consumers.

In contrast to a dominate consumer mentality, Sandel invites us to ask:  What are the designated spaces in our social landscape worth protecting from market infiltration? Where are we willing to trade market efficiencies for an arrangement we deem more equitable, just, or appropriate? There is an opportunity here, I believe, for theological participation in this conversation—as these questions no doubt posit important value-judgments. Such territory leaves room at the table for religious reflection, and there is much this tradition has to offer.

 

Kevin Brown is an Assistant Professor of Finance and Economics at Anderson University