Summary Of Life By Michael Sandel
The author of the book, Michael Sandel is considered today as a modern day philosopher and is professor at Harvard University. In this book Sandel looks at the ethical and moral aspects of the market system today. He talks about what how life as a whole has been turned into a market system where everything can be bought and sold including things that ought not to be. Sandel takes up some examples in aspects of life in society like betting on someone’s life, were characteristics of the markets are used in controlling those aspects. He looks at whether it is morally right or wrong for these areas of life in society to be treated like a market system were everything is up for sale. Looking at the case in this book from a social justice point
…show more content…
of view there are some areas of life like personal relations and some aspects of public life that should not be put up for sale and should therefore not be controlled like a market system. Sandel in his book was concerned about the way relations in our everyday life activities in society. Sandel states “…we drifted from having a market economy to being a market society” (Sandel, 10). In this statement pointed out that our society today has swayed from just having a market economy that is only used for “organizing productivity activity”(Sandel, 10) to as market society where “market values seep into every aspect of human endeavor”(Sandel, 10) , that is, gradually almost everything in society is put up for sale both those that are and those that aren’t supposed to be .He also states that that such a society would not pursue the same interests for everyone because it would create an unequal and corrupt society like we already see in today’s society. Sandel says“…the commodification of everything has sharpened the sting of inequality by making money matter more” (Sandel, pg 9). In this statement he explains that placing a cost on everything would increase the inequality that already exists in the society between the poor and the rich in society. He also expresses that “Putting a price the good things in life can corrupt them (Sandel, pg 9). Inequality and corruption were two main objections that Sandel used in his book as reasons why everything should not have a price tag on them.
Sandel presented some scenarios to show the moral limits that markets should have and also some instances were money value should not be placed on some things. Examples of such scenarios are the idea of waiting in line versus paying for fast track, hiring line standers ,Ticket scalpers , paying women to give birth to children for couples in India(surrogate mothers), paying people to be healthy, paying drug addicted mother to be sterilized, selling and buying of children ,adoption, china’s one child policy , tradable procreation and pollution rights ,paying to kill rhinos and walruses, hired friends , buying apologies and wedding toasts, selling blood vs. donation of blood, buying trophies and awards , daycare pickups , gambling and betting on peoples life with janitors insurance, Viatical businesses and death pools. These are most of the scenarios that Sandel discusses about their moral limit in markets. Sandel present both sides of the argument whether or not these things should have a money value or not. Merely looking at some of these issues clearly tells you whether they should be money value placed on them or not but From a social justice point of view most of the cases presented in the book should not have a price tag on them and some of Sandel arguments and points favor this view. The first case had to do with the paying your way to the front or for a faster service. Sandel spoke about jumping the queue versus waiting in line. The normal norm has always been to be patient and wait in line for your turn but these days that is no longer what happens. People have started paying to have fast track services in airports, restaurants, shows, amusement parks, even at clinics in china ,if you want to avoid waiting for so long all you have to do is to pay more to get yourself a fast response. He also mention that if people do not want to stand in line they can pay line standers and there is a company that recruit people that will stand in the lines for them , mostly for public court cases ,till whenever the cases start they can come and replace their line standers. One of the arguments concerning this case is that ticket scalpers that are keen for these goods are willingly to pay more for it. Sandel says “the supply of goods to the buyers who value them most highly, as measured by their willingness to pay” (Sandel, 30).
On the contrary the fact that people are willing to pay more does not necessarily mean that others that cannot afford it are not willing to pay more for it, if they had the money they would probably want to. Therefore this creates an unfair situation where those that cannot afford to pay more for a faster service or to pay someone to stand in line for them would lose out. Sandel indicates that ticket scalpers and fast trackers “…put ordinary folks at a disadvantage and makes it harder for them to get ticket” (Sandel, 31). He points out that “as markets allocate good based on the willingness to pay, queue allocates goods based on the ability and willingness to wait. And there is no reason to assume that the willingness to pay is a better measure of its value to a person than the willingness to wait” (Sandel 32). Unfortunately the market is more concerned about making more money and will jump at any opportunity to grab money from those that are willing to pay and this destroys the ethic of the queue and put those that cannot afford paying more money for fast track at a disadvantage and this create an unfair an unequal society.
One case that was strongly objected against was the one that placed a price on a sacred good, seeing pope Benedict XVI when he visited the united state for the first time. The tickets to see Him were on high demand and they were free and were distributed in different catholic parishes. As a result of the high demand of the tickets people sold the tickets online and people bought them but many people voiced against paying for a religious sacrament. In this case market values where certainly use in areas that it should not be.
Also another area that Sandel debated on Incentives. The cases Sandel addressed in this chapter was concerning paying drug addict mothers to be sterilized, so that they would be less crack babies. Sandel points out that ‘critics call the project “morally reprehensible” (sandel, 43) because it is like they are bribing the women to give up their ability to give birth. For the women this is not good because it takes away their capacity to reproduce and some of them have no choice because they come from financial disadvantaged homes. Sandel says critics say that instead of helping these people overcome their addictions through program they just bribe them. Sandel is right to point out that the wrong part of this situation is the fact that she is offered money in order not to reproduce because it is her choice is she wants to not have children but the fact that she is offered money to do is absurd. Also most of the women are not in the right frame of mind to make such decisions because their drug addicts and this way it may be seen as coercion because their situation will force them collect the money.
Another case Sandel states concerning incentives is about paying kids to read books and get good grades. Sandel provides two sides of this debate. The argument is that the values of reading maybe not be inculcated in them instead they may just read because of the money. Sandel points out that paying kids to read books does not always yield good results and he gave examples like “ the cash for good grades in Chicago led to better attendance but no improvement on standardized test(Sandel, 53). So this is a clear example that money for grades does not necessarily yield good grades.
Furthermore, on the chapter of how money crowds our morals Sandel mention cases of where people hire friends ,buy apologies and wedding toast online ,pay for awards instead of earning them. Sandel points out that one cannot buy friends he says “A hired friend is not the same a real on “(Sandel 93) and I totally agree with this ideology .A hired friend cannot do some things that your real friend will be able to do notwithstanding. He also explains that a bought apology or toast is not the same as a written on from the heart. Sandel is right when he says that “If no bought apology, however extravagant, could do the work of a personal one, then apologies like friends, are the kind of things that money cannot buy” (Sandel, 97).Therefore friendships, apologies and toasts should not be regulated by market values. The similar notion goes for awards earning an award is not the same as purchasing one. Once you purchase an award the award loses its value Sandel reveals because one did not work for the award so it technically has no value apart from the money value.
Also, concerning donation of blood and body parts has now turned into selling and buying them. On the debate for donation vs. selling blood and body parts is” marketing blood exploits the poor” (Sandel, 123 ).This is true according to the critics of selling blood and body parts because the poor will now want to sell their kidneys not because they want to but because they need the money and this is not fair to them . The second argument is that it objectifies the human body because it would be viewed “as a collection of spare parts”(Sandel,111). A similar argument goes for putting children up for adoption. It is wrong to place market values on things like this and they should not be what money can buy. Body parts should be donated not bought and children should not be sold but should be taken care of.
Lastly, one of situations that I found to be very absurd was the issue of markets in life and death.
Sandel indicates that market values are also used the gambling and betting on people’s life. Believe it or not people actually sit and negotiate on people’s life, whether they will die or live. Sandel illustrates this situation with Janitors insurance and the Viatical business. In this life insurance businesses employers and other people literally just gamble with people’s lives all for the money they will get when the persons dead. Objections that Sandel pointed out concerning the janitors insurance is that should employers take life insurance on the life of their employees without their consent, no, because it objectifies the employee. The companies may treat the employers like objects and to the company some of them will be more profitable dead than alive On this issue placing money on a person’s life is not morally right because it demeans the person as a human being because you are literally praying for the person to die, which does not sound morally right. So if market says that life and death can be commodified there is nothing else that would not be able to be commodified “With the life insurance the company bets on the person’s life. The longer they live, the more money the company makes but with the Viatical the financial interest is reserved. The companies own is that the sooner you die the better for the company” (Sandel 139) ,we cannot live in such a society with such market values, where market has control over everything even our
lives
In summary Sandel’s book provides debates about cases stating argument on whether market should control some aspects of our social and civic life. He also provides morals that should be applied in those areas of life that should not be commercialized. Sandel shows how market values degrade, demean, devalue disregard those things mentioned above that should not be. It creates a unequal, unfair and corrupt society for people to live in and that is not the society people want to live. Sandel clearly presents this debates but he does not tell us exactly what money can’t buy because he supports both the moral and unmoral part of the argument. He doesn’t tell us clearly what should not be controlled by markets.
of view there are some areas of life like personal relations and some aspects of public life that should not be put up for sale and should therefore not be controlled like a market system. Sandel in his book was concerned about the way relations in our everyday life activities in society. Sandel states “…we drifted from having a market economy to being a market society” (Sandel, 10). In this statement pointed out that our society today has swayed from just having a market economy that is only used for “organizing productivity activity”(Sandel, 10) to as market society where “market values seep into every aspect of human endeavor”(Sandel, 10) , that is, gradually almost everything in society is put up for sale both those that are and those that aren’t supposed to be .He also states that that such a society would not pursue the same interests for everyone because it would create an unequal and corrupt society like we already see in today’s society. Sandel says“…the commodification of everything has sharpened the sting of inequality by making money matter more” (Sandel, pg 9). In this statement he explains that placing a cost on everything would increase the inequality that already exists in the society between the poor and the rich in society. He also expresses that “Putting a price the good things in life can corrupt them (Sandel, pg 9). Inequality and corruption were two main objections that Sandel used in his book as reasons why everything should not have a price tag on them.
Sandel presented some scenarios to show the moral limits that markets should have and also some instances were money value should not be placed on some things. Examples of such scenarios are the idea of waiting in line versus paying for fast track, hiring line standers ,Ticket scalpers , paying women to give birth to children for couples in India(surrogate mothers), paying people to be healthy, paying drug addicted mother to be sterilized, selling and buying of children ,adoption, china’s one child policy , tradable procreation and pollution rights ,paying to kill rhinos and walruses, hired friends , buying apologies and wedding toasts, selling blood vs. donation of blood, buying trophies and awards , daycare pickups , gambling and betting on peoples life with janitors insurance, Viatical businesses and death pools. These are most of the scenarios that Sandel discusses about their moral limit in markets. Sandel present both sides of the argument whether or not these things should have a money value or not. Merely looking at some of these issues clearly tells you whether they should be money value placed on them or not but From a social justice point of view most of the cases presented in the book should not have a price tag on them and some of Sandel arguments and points favor this view. The first case had to do with the paying your way to the front or for a faster service. Sandel spoke about jumping the queue versus waiting in line. The normal norm has always been to be patient and wait in line for your turn but these days that is no longer what happens. People have started paying to have fast track services in airports, restaurants, shows, amusement parks, even at clinics in china ,if you want to avoid waiting for so long all you have to do is to pay more to get yourself a fast response. He also mention that if people do not want to stand in line they can pay line standers and there is a company that recruit people that will stand in the lines for them , mostly for public court cases ,till whenever the cases start they can come and replace their line standers. One of the arguments concerning this case is that ticket scalpers that are keen for these goods are willingly to pay more for it. Sandel says “the supply of goods to the buyers who value them most highly, as measured by their willingness to pay” (Sandel, 30).
On the contrary the fact that people are willing to pay more does not necessarily mean that others that cannot afford it are not willing to pay more for it, if they had the money they would probably want to. Therefore this creates an unfair situation where those that cannot afford to pay more for a faster service or to pay someone to stand in line for them would lose out. Sandel indicates that ticket scalpers and fast trackers “…put ordinary folks at a disadvantage and makes it harder for them to get ticket” (Sandel, 31). He points out that “as markets allocate good based on the willingness to pay, queue allocates goods based on the ability and willingness to wait. And there is no reason to assume that the willingness to pay is a better measure of its value to a person than the willingness to wait” (Sandel 32). Unfortunately the market is more concerned about making more money and will jump at any opportunity to grab money from those that are willing to pay and this destroys the ethic of the queue and put those that cannot afford paying more money for fast track at a disadvantage and this create an unfair an unequal society.
One case that was strongly objected against was the one that placed a price on a sacred good, seeing pope Benedict XVI when he visited the united state for the first time. The tickets to see Him were on high demand and they were free and were distributed in different catholic parishes. As a result of the high demand of the tickets people sold the tickets online and people bought them but many people voiced against paying for a religious sacrament. In this case market values where certainly use in areas that it should not be.
Also another area that Sandel debated on Incentives. The cases Sandel addressed in this chapter was concerning paying drug addict mothers to be sterilized, so that they would be less crack babies. Sandel points out that ‘critics call the project “morally reprehensible” (sandel, 43) because it is like they are bribing the women to give up their ability to give birth. For the women this is not good because it takes away their capacity to reproduce and some of them have no choice because they come from financial disadvantaged homes. Sandel says critics say that instead of helping these people overcome their addictions through program they just bribe them. Sandel is right to point out that the wrong part of this situation is the fact that she is offered money in order not to reproduce because it is her choice is she wants to not have children but the fact that she is offered money to do is absurd. Also most of the women are not in the right frame of mind to make such decisions because their drug addicts and this way it may be seen as coercion because their situation will force them collect the money.
Another case Sandel states concerning incentives is about paying kids to read books and get good grades. Sandel provides two sides of this debate. The argument is that the values of reading maybe not be inculcated in them instead they may just read because of the money. Sandel points out that paying kids to read books does not always yield good results and he gave examples like “ the cash for good grades in Chicago led to better attendance but no improvement on standardized test(Sandel, 53). So this is a clear example that money for grades does not necessarily yield good grades.
Furthermore, on the chapter of how money crowds our morals Sandel mention cases of where people hire friends ,buy apologies and wedding toast online ,pay for awards instead of earning them. Sandel points out that one cannot buy friends he says “A hired friend is not the same a real on “(Sandel 93) and I totally agree with this ideology .A hired friend cannot do some things that your real friend will be able to do notwithstanding. He also explains that a bought apology or toast is not the same as a written on from the heart. Sandel is right when he says that “If no bought apology, however extravagant, could do the work of a personal one, then apologies like friends, are the kind of things that money cannot buy” (Sandel, 97).Therefore friendships, apologies and toasts should not be regulated by market values. The similar notion goes for awards earning an award is not the same as purchasing one. Once you purchase an award the award loses its value Sandel reveals because one did not work for the award so it technically has no value apart from the money value.
Also, concerning donation of blood and body parts has now turned into selling and buying them. On the debate for donation vs. selling blood and body parts is” marketing blood exploits the poor” (Sandel, 123 ).This is true according to the critics of selling blood and body parts because the poor will now want to sell their kidneys not because they want to but because they need the money and this is not fair to them . The second argument is that it objectifies the human body because it would be viewed “as a collection of spare parts”(Sandel,111). A similar argument goes for putting children up for adoption. It is wrong to place market values on things like this and they should not be what money can buy. Body parts should be donated not bought and children should not be sold but should be taken care of.
Lastly, one of situations that I found to be very absurd was the issue of markets in life and death.
Sandel indicates that market values are also used the gambling and betting on people’s life. Believe it or not people actually sit and negotiate on people’s life, whether they will die or live. Sandel illustrates this situation with Janitors insurance and the Viatical business. In this life insurance businesses employers and other people literally just gamble with people’s lives all for the money they will get when the persons dead. Objections that Sandel pointed out concerning the janitors insurance is that should employers take life insurance on the life of their employees without their consent, no, because it objectifies the employee. The companies may treat the employers like objects and to the company some of them will be more profitable dead than alive On this issue placing money on a person’s life is not morally right because it demeans the person as a human being because you are literally praying for the person to die, which does not sound morally right. So if market says that life and death can be commodified there is nothing else that would not be able to be commodified “With the life insurance the company bets on the person’s life. The longer they live, the more money the company makes but with the Viatical the financial interest is reserved. The companies own is that the sooner you die the better for the company” (Sandel 139) ,we cannot live in such a society with such market values, where market has control over everything even our
lives
In summary Sandel’s book provides debates about cases stating argument on whether market should control some aspects of our social and civic life. He also provides morals that should be applied in those areas of life that should not be commercialized. Sandel shows how market values degrade, demean, devalue disregard those things mentioned above that should not be. It creates a unequal, unfair and corrupt society for people to live in and that is not the society people want to live. Sandel clearly presents this debates but he does not tell us exactly what money can’t buy because he supports both the moral and unmoral part of the argument. He doesn’t tell us clearly what should not be controlled by markets.