MESSAGE
| DATE | 2008-10-07 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Free Markets and Moral Development
|
Excuse me for being a little political on the list tonight. I try to
keep it down, but the election season is on us and a constructive POV is
sometimes refreshing.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28734/pub_detail.asp
Does the Free Market Corrode Moral Character?
Print Mail
Not at All
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Posted: Monday, October 6, 2008
ARTICLES
John Templeton Foundation
Publication Date: October 1, 2008
In the fourth of the John Templeton Foundation's series of conversations
among leading scientists, scholars, and public figures about the "big
questions" of human life, Ayaan Hirsi Ali considers whether the free
market corrodes moral character. See the entire series at
www.templeton.org/bigquestions/.
Does the free market corrode moral character? Not at all.
Resident Fellow Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Resident Fellow
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
There is little consensus on what is moral, let alone on what corrodes
morality. A man of faith measures moral character by one's ability to
abide by the demands of his God. A socialist might measure moral
strength by one's dedication to the redistribution of wealth. A
liberal--by which I mean a classical, Adam Smith or Milton Friedman
liberal, not a liberal in its American meaning of "pro-big
government"--might be religious, and he might see the merits of income
equality, but he will always put freedom first. This is the moral
framework to which I subscribe.
According to this school of thought, freedom of the individual is the
highest aim, and the ultimate test of a person's character is his
ability to pursue his own chosen goals in life without infringing upon
the freedom of others to pursue their own goals. From this perspective,
free economic activity among individuals, corporations, and nations
boosts such desirable qualities as trust, honesty, and hard work.
Producers are compelled to continually improve their goods and services.
The free market establishes a meritocracy and creates opportunities for
better jobs for those students who work hard at school. The same
mechanism pushes parents to invest more time and money in the education
of their children. Producers invest in research and innovation to beat
their competitors in the marketplace.
To appreciate just how effectively the free market strengthens moral
character, it is helpful to glance at economic systems that undermine or
openly reject it.
To appreciate just how effectively the free market strengthens moral
character, it is helpful to glance at economic systems that undermine or
openly reject it. Everywhere Communism has been tried, for instance, it
has resulted not just in corruption and sub-standard products but also
in fear, apathy, ignorance, oppression, and a general lack of trust. The
Soviet Union and pre-reform China were morally as well as economically
bankrupt.
Or consider the feudal order typified by Saudi Arabia. There we see an
absolute monarch, a religious hierarchy that reinforces the ruling
family's hold on power, and several classes of serfs: the oppressed
Shi'a minority, the vastly exploited underclass of immigrant workers,
and women, who are confined and abused. The stagnation and oppression of
Saudi society make it utterly immoral in the eyes of a classical
liberal. Unlike Communism, it cannot even proffer the fig leaf of
greater "fairness."
Free markets have their moral flaws. I can see why critics find it
difficult to detect morality in a market system that allows young girls
to earn vast wealth for swaying and warbling on TV and young men to
become obscenely prosperous because they can hip-hop to drug-induced
rhythmic heights. A legitimate debate also exists between proponents of
entirely free markets and those who suggest that vital services such as
health-care and education require a measure of government oversight.
To my mind, the extent of government welfare services in Western Europe
is excessive and counterproductive; it discourages innovation and
rewards dependency, corroding moral fiber and individual responsibility
by encouraging people to become lazy and dependent on the state for
things they could (and should) do for themselves. In a free-market
society, where liberty comes first, individuals tend to be more creative
and to innovate; in welfare states that assign priority to equality, the
natural resourcefulness of human beings is perverted. To become
successful, you must learn how to "work the system" rather than how to
develop a better product. Risk is avoided, and individual responsibility
is thwarted. Although superficially the system may appear fair, it
promotes mediocrity and a sense of victimhood, and it discourages those
who want to excel.
Free-market societies are under fire from environmentalists today for
supposedly ruining the planet. But the passionate debate about global
warming and the moral implications of waste and pollution has arisen
only in politically free societies. Moreover, as governments debate
whether global warming is really man-made, economic actors have already
begun to incorporate these concerns into their production and
investment. They have begun taking measures to build more fuel-efficient
cars and to create affordable systems to provide alternative sources of
energy. Greener-than-thou marketing is a strong force among a certain
sector of consumers. Corporations and firms do this because they are
rational economic actors. Companies that are greener may actually make
more profits than those that ignore environmental morality.
Are the rich always greedy? There are many wealthy, decadent, and vapid
people in America. But there are also many very active philanthropists,
and indeed, thanks to some of the wealthiest people in the country,
there is a marked improvement in public awareness in the fight against
various epidemics. The goal of wiping out malaria, for instance, might
sooner be achieved by private investors than by states or UN bureaucrats.
These fortunate men and women also take pride in their contributions to
such cultural goods as libraries, concerts, museums, and, lately, a
cleaner planet. The very active individual philanthropy that
characterizes America may be a function of the tax code, but that is
interesting in itself: a well-framed free market can be more effective
in improving the common good than a bloated international bureaucracy
operated by governments.
For those seeking moral perfection and a perfect society, a free market
is not the answer. In the course of history, the search for perfect
societies--that is, the failure to acknowledge human
imperfection--almost always ended in one or another form of theocracy,
authoritarianism, or violent anarchy. But for those who seek to work
with human flaws of every stripe, and to increase the sum total of
individual happiness, the free market, combined with political freedom,
is the best way.
America is imperfect, chaotic, sometimes decadent, and often rough on
the weak. But its moral standards are far higher than those of history's
other great powers.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a resident fellow at AEI.
Related Links
Response to the same question by Jagdish Bhagwati
Response to the same question by Michael Novak
|
|
