Moral Criticisms Of The Market Question And Prompt

Moral Criticisms of the Market Question/Prompt: This assignment requires you to read "Moral Criticisms of the Market" by Ken S. Ewert

This assignment requires you to read "Moral Criticisms of the Market" by Ken S. Ewert (found in the Reading & Study folder). Note that in his article, Ewert is defending the free market from "Christian Socialists." He states their position and then gives a rebuttal. Do you agree with the critique of the market in Ewert's article? Why or why not?

Read carefully and offer cogent reasons. Consider the context of the article; the Berlin Wall fell months after the article was published. The USSR followed shortly thereafter.

Paper For Above instruction

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union marked a significant turning point in global history, signaling the decline of centrally planned economies and the rise of free-market capitalism as a dominant economic system. In this context, Ken S. Ewert's article, "Moral Criticisms of the Market," provides a compelling defense of the free market against criticisms typically voiced by Christian Socialists. To assess whether one agrees with Ewert's critique, it is essential to understand both his arguments and the broader ethical implications of free markets, especially considering the historical setting.

Ewert's primary defense of the free market hinges on its efficiency, moral neutrality, and capacity to promote human flourishing through voluntary exchange. He argues that the market, when functioning properly, respects individual autonomy and permits individuals to pursue their own interests, which collectively lead to social benefits. This perspective aligns closely with classical liberal ideas that emphasize personal freedom and the importance of private property rights. From this vantage point, moral criticisms that focus on inequalities or exploitation are either flawed or overstated because they overlook the voluntary nature of market transactions and the potential for economic growth to improve overall well-being.

However, Christian Socialists and other critics often argue that markets inherently produce inequality, undermine community, and neglect moral responsibilities to the vulnerable. Ewert rebuts these claims by emphasizing that markets are morally neutral tools, and morally corrupt practices arise from human greed or misapplication, not from the market itself. He advocates for minimal government interference, believing that free markets better serve moral values by fostering innovation, charitable giving, and the natural development of shared prosperity without paternalistic constraints.

Considering whether to agree with Ewert's critique involves evaluating these arguments against the ethical realities of economic disparities. Critics contend that unregulated markets can lead to significant inequalities that threaten social cohesion and justice. For example, wealth concentrated in the hands of a few can undermine democratic processes and exacerbate social divisions. Conversely, defenders argue that free markets, by rewarding productivity and providing opportunities, can also serve moral ends if coupled with appropriate voluntary charity and social responsibility.

The historical context enhances this debate. The fall of communism demonstrated the failure of centrally planned economies to deliver sustained prosperity or individual freedoms comparable to those produced by market economies. This empirical evidence supports Ewert's view that free markets are crucial for human development. Nonetheless, the ethical critique remains pertinent; markets must be managed to ensure they do not violate moral principles of justice and equity. While the fall of the Soviet Union underscores the superiority of markets in generating wealth and freedom, it also underscores the necessity of moral oversight to prevent exploitation and severe disparities.

In conclusion, I find myself sympathetic to Ewert’s defense of the free market but also recognizing the importance of moral safeguards. Markets are powerful engines for prosperity, but they require ethical regulation to address inequalities and protect vulnerable populations. The fall of communism affirms the practical benefits of market economies, yet the moral criticisms serve as vital reminders that economic systems should serve human dignity, justice, and the common good. Therefore, I agree with the critique insofar as it highlights the need for moral responsibility within free market practices, ensuring they align with broader ethical values.

References

• Ewert, K. S. (Year). Moral Criticisms of the Market. In Reading & Study folder. [Note: Replace with actual publication info if available]
• Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
• Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
• Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations. Bantam Classics.
• Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of Economics. Macmillan.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. Russell Sage Foundation.
• Hayek, F. A. (1944). The Road to Serfdom. Routledge.