What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (Book Review)

Michael Sandel teaches at Harvard University. The course – Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? – that he teaches at Harvard is officially put up on youtube for public views. The same course attracts almost a thousand student each year, making Sandel one of the most popular teachers of his generation. 

 

The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 sets binding obligation on industrialised nations to reduce emission of polluting gases. It says that a country can reduce pollution either by reducing emission of polluting gases itself or pay another country to reduce theirs. The second option works this way: US can continue to produce as much pollution as it is provided it pays to replace diesel run buses in India with CNG. After all, the Protocol seems to argue, the effect is just the same: less pollution globally. Let's take another case. Stiffs.com offers “gamblers” a chance to make money by betting on which famous personality will die by year's end. Current “hit list” includes Billy Graham, George Bush Sr., Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro and others. One may argue that these people are not made worse off when strangers bet on when they will die. Let's take one more case. In 1928 Canada banned walrus hunting except for Inuit whose livelihood depends on that for thousand of years (instead of the term 'Eskimo' which is considered derogatory, 'Inuit' is the politically correct label). In the 1990s Inuit leaders approached Canadian government to sell their right to kill some walrus quota to big-game hunters. The number of walrus killed will remain unchanged; Inuits will get extra money and the hunter their game. The government agreed! 

 

Is the transaction involved in the cases mentioned above morally right or not? Sandel is nonjudgmental on the moral correctness of the several dozens of cases he mentioned. However, he argues that what is right or wrong, what is the good life or what kind of social practices we should prize are some questions we should debate about in public life. Leaving all these questions unaddressed, purely at the mercy of market driven social practices, will render a society virtue-less. Since virtues, generosity or civic spirit grow with use, like human muscles that grow with daily exercise, he asks if maintaining silence on moral and spiritual matters for fear of rival versions competing in the democratic life is healthy. But it is exactly for fear of various moral and spiritual beliefs competing in the democratic market that some people want to keep the subject matter out of the public square.
 

Different cultures practice different moral norms. It was like that in the past; and in the present state of affairs too, that's the case. But does this kind of diversity undermine the whole idea of moral progress? Can we say a culture that practises infanticide is as morally right as a culture that forbids this practice, ceteris paribus. Was it a mistake to abolish burning of widow or slavery because people then thought that such practices were bad? No. They did the right thing. But if they did the right thing then morality is not really relative; or is it? If the idea of moral progress is not a myth then we need to debate moral matters in public square. Unless we do that there cannot be moral progress as a society. Even today some cultures cut off the hand of the thief; some cultures expel couple of same sex; some cultures abort foetus. How must the state respond to the different practices: forget about this matters or debate about them? It's not just economic matters but other ethical inquiries that require debate in the public square, more so in the university settings. Kicking religion and morality out of public square will create an even bigger moral and spiritual vacuum in the political space. 

 

Let me also borrow a line of argument from the book and apply in another setting. In Senapati town and adjoining areas, those who are in a desperate situation borrow money from private lenders at the rate of 60% per year. Sometimes the rate may reach 90% or 120% or even upto 150% per year, depending on how desperate a situation one is in. Proponents of free-market economy would argue that demand and supply matrix engenders such a state of affairs. None compels a person to borrow; the borrowers take loan from the private lenders at his own free will. Based on the demand, supply at such rate flourishes. But one may raise two objections here to such an argument: the fairness argument and the corruption argument. Those who borrow money at such a high interest rate are in a desperate economic situation. Many a times it is for urgent medical care. Charging high interest rate in such a situation is taking advantage of someone's helplessness. So it is not fair (This is the fairness argument). The other argument is that it is a duty of each person to help one another; even the private lenders would agree that the lending of money is to help the needy person, not to exploit him or add more misery to his woes or for profit motive alone. And when interest rate is just so high, the primary concept of lending money to help the needy ones is damaged (This is the corruption argument). 

 

Should we let free-market economy have its way or should we say money can't just buy off one's responsibility, one's duty? May we say that US ought not to trade off its civic responsibility with money? Or in the case of gambling can we say even if one does no harm to someone physically, it is not right to gamble on someone's life – waiting for him to die so that I get paid! Or is this a morally neutral ground that moral and political philosophy/theology must not get into? In this book and in the international bestseller Justice: What's the Right Thing to do? Michael Sandel probes subject matters that sit on the edge of ethics and political economy. With his many real life illustrations and stories, he brings out the moral questions and complexities of human affairs. Sandel is easy to digest yet profound!

Nancey Murphy on Genesis Text and Darwin's Theory

Nancey Murphy, who has a doctorate in Philosophy of Science (University of California, Berkeley) and another doctorate in Theology (Graduate Theological Union), speaks on evolutionary biology and Genesis text.

Which is Easier: Straightening a Dog's Tail or Making Election Clean?

Politics has become a dirty game. It has now come to a situation where people say unless you are a crook, you cannot make a career in politics. But if politics has become a den of thieves and robbers, we cannot expect them to legislate rules that would govern our collective life towards a more progressive society; to enhance our well-being. How can we expect thieves and robbers to lead the way in striving for common good? Good people must enter the political arena if we have to have a decent society. 

So this campaign -- Clean Election -- by certain groups is a brave and a desirable move. And to make Clean Election more effective in the future, this is what I have to say. It is not sufficient to say that candidates should not distribute money or that people should not take money from the candidates. I call telling the candidates not to try to lure people with money or telling people not to take money as the first line of Strategy for Clean Election campaign. I think we need a second line as well to make it more effective. And this is the second line of strategy: Even if you have taken money, you need not vote for the person from whom you have taken money. Don't let your conscience prick you into voting for the candidate from whom you have taken money! 

Now let me provide a theological justification for the second line. Over the years if all the candidates realise that giving money does not really gather votes, they will stop using money to purchase votes. If money does not gather votes, real issues that affect the lives of the people will have to be the subject of electioneering. And this is what Clean Election campaign wants to obtain.

Human being is intrinsically good. I am a Christian and I believe that when God made us, he declares his creation good. But there is also something that has gone wrong. So there is also this part of fallenness in all of us. So trying to get a perfect world through democracy or theocracy or monarchy or whatever is going to be like trying to straighten a dog's tail. However, we can make the world less unjust or a little better place to live. This is possible!

Buddhism is Not an Atheistic Religion

Gotama, as it is spelled in Digha Nikaya, was concerned with ending suffering. His teaching has no room for the gods to help a person is realising nibbaba ('nirvana' in Sanskrit). The existence of heaven and hell are not his concern. All of this does not mean that Gotama denies the existence of gods, heaven and hell. If atheism means denial of the existence of gods, then Gotama was not an atheist; and Buddhism not an atheistic religion. 

In the 16th Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, called Mahaparinibbana Sutta: The Great Passing (The Buddha's Last Days), an account relating to the gods takes place. Gotama was almost at the end of his life. Just then when Upavana was standing near to him, fanning the dying Gotama, Gotama asked him to move aside. Ananda, Gotama's close disciple, asked the Lord why this was done. Gotama said, Ananda, the devas from ten world-spheres have gathered to see the Tathagata... attain final Nibbana" Gotama continued saying that the devas (gods) are complaining that their vision is being blocked by the monk standing in front of the Lord. Upon inquiring what kind of gods have come, Gotama said that sky-devas,  earth-devas and devas who are free from craving are there. 

Traditional Buddhism also believes that a person can be reborn in Hell or in the world of hungry ghost or the asuras (demons) or peerless devas etc. Considering this sort of beliefs, it is not correct to label Buddhism as an atheistic religion.

Quoting Wikipedia as a Source: Yes or No?

So many people have written on this, nevertheless, I thought it's important to repeat here specially for those who may read only my blog. Is it alright to quote Wikipedia material as a source when one is writing a book or an article for a journal? No. And these are the reasons: 

1. One never knows who all have written the materials of Wikipedia. It could have been written by a Ph.D scholar or  by someone with a strong prejudice about the subject matter. Since one does not have sufficient idea whether the material has been written by a person with sufficient expertise or not, it is not trustworthy. Along with this take the fact that the materials can be edited by anyone. 

2. When online materials are quoted, it is important to give the date of accessing the materials. With Wikipedia the materials can change many a time in a day itself since it follows a system where anyone can do editing. This is just too unstable and thus leaves no chance to be vetted by scholars.

NB: To get the broad overview of the subject, Wikipedia provides a good platform. But to be quoted as an authoritative source for a book/journal, Wikipedia is not an appropriate source, at least for now.

Amartya Sen, Religious Identity & Conflicts

In his essays and lectures, Amartya Sen emphasizes again and again that all individuals belong to different groups. The fact that Paole is a teacher does not entail that being a teacher is his only identity. Besides being a teacher, he is also affiliated to diverse groups that give him some sort of identity. He is a hockey player, political activist, poet, Christian, childless parent, Indian etc. Affiliation to different groups give him identity which if a particular identity is prioritized over others, Sen argues, his identity would be wrongly misconstrued. This multiple affiliation by an individual leads Sen to argue that mono-categorisation of a person's identity is unhelpful and can easily play into the hand of a religious fundamentalist. Is Prof. Sen correct? 

I think as a non-religious person Sen fails to see how much religious worldview shapes the identity of a person. Key questions like where am I headed? How do I obtain moral learning from? What is the purpose of my life? etc are very significant matters in the life of a person. For a practising Christian or a Muslim these questions are answered through the sacred text. Unlike a non-religious person for whom where there is no particular source from where all these answered can be derived, a Christian or a Muslim search deep into their respective Scripture to get the answer. Departure from this practice would make him or her a non-practising Christian or a Muslim. 

Once a Christian or a Muslim learns an ethical pattern from the Scripture, he or she will apply the learning in all the domain of his or her life. Thus religious affiliation effects the person to live out his or her religious conviction. This religious affiliation takes priority over even national affiliation or family affiliation. This is the nature of religious affiliation. Religious affiliation does not always come into conflict with national or family affiliation. But sometimes it does. For example, even when former USSR adopted atheism as its official religion, faithful Christians refused to comply with the state's law.

Does this entail that a clash of civilisation is inevitable? No. But that is not the point of inquiry here. In this post I seek to underline that religious identity of particularly the Christians or the Muslims is the most primary identity and will continue to remain so.