Reflections on Morality Part 2 of 2: Morality and Economy
This is my 2800th post.
Every decision, whether an issue of ethics and morality or not, comes with consequences. Every choice we make, be it moral/ethical or trivial, carries with it both apparent and unforeseen consequences. In fact, there are many cases in which important moral decisions become difficult because of the severe consequences carried by each available option. An excellent example of this comes from the way that human beings wield power. That's right, folks: economics. Examples can be cited on both the microeconomic and macroeconomic levels. We'll start with microeconomics, as it's a bit more tangible.
In order to understand economics, one must first understand what money is, exactly. For the most part, human beings, particularly those in developed nations, see money as inherently valuable. Allow me to paraphrase a conversation that I might have had with F3 at some point.
But why is gold valuable? Why are little bits of metal with the faces of dead men stamped on them "valuable"? What about scraps of printed paper? Well, one could say, with a moderate degree of honesty, that those bits of metal and printed scraps of paper represent real gold (kind of) in the Federal Reserve, but even this is skirting the issue because that gold has no inherent value; it has uses, but its value is completely arbitrary.
So, given that various commodities possess value through purely arbitrary reasoning, what is the real meaning of money? It's simple, and summed up into an old adage: money is power. Money represents the power to secure the ownership, use, or receipt of goods and services. The more money you have, the more capacity you have for controlling items and people. Power and responsibility are inexorably linked: a small child has a responsibility to retain a penny. The responsibility may be small, but power and responsibility increase with each other: no power requires no responsibility, while ultimate power requires ultimate responsibility.
We have a responsibility, a moral choice, about how to spend our money. When the 2004 Tsunami hit, people felt a moral responsibility to sacrifice a portion of their power so that that power could be used to rebuild the devastated areas. After Hurricane Katrina, even your eponymous six-legged superhero felt an obligation to sacrifice a part of his possessed power in order to help those whose lives were effected; though, for the record, I had them designate my money to go to Mississippi, not New Orleans (my charity is tempered by a desire to avoid rewarding personal irresponsibility). Many people do this frequently on a small scale, sacrificing the capacity to buy a movie, or to dine out on a particular evening, and giving the money saved to a charity of their choice, be it a literacy program, a women's shelter, or a fund for diabetes research; still others make the wrong choice, to spend their power on a prostitute in New Amsterdam or Las Vegas, or to buy a weapon for the purpose of harming another human being. These are examples of money, which is really power, being used for particular purposes based on the moral code of particular individuals. These choices have consequences.
Of course, these issues of microeconomics having been established and briefly discussed, the bigger picture comes to light. No one is an island, and we have become habitual traders of power on a much larger scale. Humans form groups, groups form communities, communities form governments, and eventually nations emerge; and nations must establish economic systems in order to retain some control not only over power, but over the orderly exchange of power. Governments, based on the will of either the people or powerful individuals, establish these systems based on various priorities and values.
As much as we'd like to believe that perfect choices exist, the obvious truth is that every choice, including the expenditure of monetary power, requires a sacrifice. In this case, power is like energy, of which there are two kinds: potential energy and kinetic energy. A hundred dollar bill is potential power: it has the potential to be used for avrious things, and when you make a choice as to what it's going to be used for, you are making a value judgment: "I conclude that it is the right choice to expend power on this option." Each transaction that is carried out is a transaction of sacrifice: to gain requires that we sacrifice the power to make a different gain. Our economic systems exist in the same way, and I will discuss two: communism and capitalism.
Communism is a system designed by Karl Marx. It involves collective (commune) ownership of all commodities, property, et cetera. It stresses economic fairness and equality, and controlled, orderly economic operations. The drawbacks and sacrifices in this system are personal freedom and opportunity: in order to enforce fairness, the lives of the people must be monitored closely, and their choices must be limited. Opportunities to excel and exceed normal acquisiton must be stifled; opportunities to expand markets and innovate are nearly non-existent. In order to implement this version of a fair and equitable system, the government must exercise ultimate control over people and markets; personal freedoms and opportunities are sacrificed accordingly; in addition, history has shown that a communist system encourages corruption.
Capitalism is a system designed by Adam Smith. It involves minimal government control over markets, emphasizing personal responsibility, freedom, opportunity and innovation. The sacrifice required under a capitalist system is personal security: in order for capitalism to work, people must be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. Generally speaking, a worker who is willing to put in a full day's work, even at an unskilled job, is able to survive and, in many cases, flourish. Those with talents, ideas, or strong work ethics are more likely to succeed. However, under a strict capitalist system no safety net exists, and this can lead to systems of social Darwinism. In order for people to have personal freedoms and the opportunity for amazing success, they must run the risk of complete and total failure. This can be construed as unfair, and with some merit.
So, which system is preferable? That all depends upon the will of the people; or at least, it should. The point, though, is that even this is a moral choice, and an imperfect one. Both communism and capitalism have their potential benefits and their drawbacks. Just as any transaction involves a sacrifice, any economic system involves sacrifices.
Thus, we see that economic decisions are moral decisions, just like most of the other decisions we make; the smallest decision, getting a cup of tea from the local coffee house, involves making a value judgment regarding how best to wield power. The choice of an economic system is no different, save for the scope of the sacrifices and gains.
Every decision, whether an issue of ethics and morality or not, comes with consequences. Every choice we make, be it moral/ethical or trivial, carries with it both apparent and unforeseen consequences. In fact, there are many cases in which important moral decisions become difficult because of the severe consequences carried by each available option. An excellent example of this comes from the way that human beings wield power. That's right, folks: economics. Examples can be cited on both the microeconomic and macroeconomic levels. We'll start with microeconomics, as it's a bit more tangible.
In order to understand economics, one must first understand what money is, exactly. For the most part, human beings, particularly those in developed nations, see money as inherently valuable. Allow me to paraphrase a conversation that I might have had with F3 at some point.
The Fly: "Why is that gold so valuable to you?"
F3: "Because it's shiny, you moron! *smack* And I want it!"
But why is gold valuable? Why are little bits of metal with the faces of dead men stamped on them "valuable"? What about scraps of printed paper? Well, one could say, with a moderate degree of honesty, that those bits of metal and printed scraps of paper represent real gold (kind of) in the Federal Reserve, but even this is skirting the issue because that gold has no inherent value; it has uses, but its value is completely arbitrary.
So, given that various commodities possess value through purely arbitrary reasoning, what is the real meaning of money? It's simple, and summed up into an old adage: money is power. Money represents the power to secure the ownership, use, or receipt of goods and services. The more money you have, the more capacity you have for controlling items and people. Power and responsibility are inexorably linked: a small child has a responsibility to retain a penny. The responsibility may be small, but power and responsibility increase with each other: no power requires no responsibility, while ultimate power requires ultimate responsibility.
We have a responsibility, a moral choice, about how to spend our money. When the 2004 Tsunami hit, people felt a moral responsibility to sacrifice a portion of their power so that that power could be used to rebuild the devastated areas. After Hurricane Katrina, even your eponymous six-legged superhero felt an obligation to sacrifice a part of his possessed power in order to help those whose lives were effected; though, for the record, I had them designate my money to go to Mississippi, not New Orleans (my charity is tempered by a desire to avoid rewarding personal irresponsibility). Many people do this frequently on a small scale, sacrificing the capacity to buy a movie, or to dine out on a particular evening, and giving the money saved to a charity of their choice, be it a literacy program, a women's shelter, or a fund for diabetes research; still others make the wrong choice, to spend their power on a prostitute in New Amsterdam or Las Vegas, or to buy a weapon for the purpose of harming another human being. These are examples of money, which is really power, being used for particular purposes based on the moral code of particular individuals. These choices have consequences.
Of course, these issues of microeconomics having been established and briefly discussed, the bigger picture comes to light. No one is an island, and we have become habitual traders of power on a much larger scale. Humans form groups, groups form communities, communities form governments, and eventually nations emerge; and nations must establish economic systems in order to retain some control not only over power, but over the orderly exchange of power. Governments, based on the will of either the people or powerful individuals, establish these systems based on various priorities and values.
As much as we'd like to believe that perfect choices exist, the obvious truth is that every choice, including the expenditure of monetary power, requires a sacrifice. In this case, power is like energy, of which there are two kinds: potential energy and kinetic energy. A hundred dollar bill is potential power: it has the potential to be used for avrious things, and when you make a choice as to what it's going to be used for, you are making a value judgment: "I conclude that it is the right choice to expend power on this option." Each transaction that is carried out is a transaction of sacrifice: to gain requires that we sacrifice the power to make a different gain. Our economic systems exist in the same way, and I will discuss two: communism and capitalism.
Communism is a system designed by Karl Marx. It involves collective (commune) ownership of all commodities, property, et cetera. It stresses economic fairness and equality, and controlled, orderly economic operations. The drawbacks and sacrifices in this system are personal freedom and opportunity: in order to enforce fairness, the lives of the people must be monitored closely, and their choices must be limited. Opportunities to excel and exceed normal acquisiton must be stifled; opportunities to expand markets and innovate are nearly non-existent. In order to implement this version of a fair and equitable system, the government must exercise ultimate control over people and markets; personal freedoms and opportunities are sacrificed accordingly; in addition, history has shown that a communist system encourages corruption.
Capitalism is a system designed by Adam Smith. It involves minimal government control over markets, emphasizing personal responsibility, freedom, opportunity and innovation. The sacrifice required under a capitalist system is personal security: in order for capitalism to work, people must be allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits. Generally speaking, a worker who is willing to put in a full day's work, even at an unskilled job, is able to survive and, in many cases, flourish. Those with talents, ideas, or strong work ethics are more likely to succeed. However, under a strict capitalist system no safety net exists, and this can lead to systems of social Darwinism. In order for people to have personal freedoms and the opportunity for amazing success, they must run the risk of complete and total failure. This can be construed as unfair, and with some merit.
So, which system is preferable? That all depends upon the will of the people; or at least, it should. The point, though, is that even this is a moral choice, and an imperfect one. Both communism and capitalism have their potential benefits and their drawbacks. Just as any transaction involves a sacrifice, any economic system involves sacrifices.
Thus, we see that economic decisions are moral decisions, just like most of the other decisions we make; the smallest decision, getting a cup of tea from the local coffee house, involves making a value judgment regarding how best to wield power. The choice of an economic system is no different, save for the scope of the sacrifices and gains.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home