Summary Of What Money Can T Buy The Moral Limits Of Markets
Analysis of “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”, by Michael Sandel
Introduction
In the article "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets," Michael Sandel points out that over the past thirty years Americans have transformed what would be considered a strong and lively free market into a nation of citizens who see everything as a commodity available on the market, including things like, people's daily and personal lives (reality TV), personal tragedy, death, and gender choices, etc. It's Sandel's argument that this is a "slippery-slope" mentality that will lead to the loss of spiritual and moral boundaries, and that the market, although it is a good thing has the power to degrade and corrupt these things we hold valuable. …show more content…
It seems he loses gas when his work reaches this critical point in the reading. There is not much clarity around what can be described as a "liberal" point of view on the matter. It would have helped, let's say, that if he thought society should give merit and time to this subject of "good" which he defines as "a particular set of values about what constitutes a moral and worthwhile existence", he should have put more attention to that detail in his writing, for example, be clearer about what constitutes a "value" and why that is. It seems by how I read his work, that he gives us is his implied set of values he considers common to us all, in regard to cultural and religious traditions and practices. The problem I think is obvious in that is we will have no way, ever, of covering all of the different values and traditions of all of the communities. The point being is that we would be falling back into a kind of conservatism, culturally, in which a majority would be able to dictate to others what is appropriate. I call this a recycled
Introduction
In the article "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets," Michael Sandel points out that over the past thirty years Americans have transformed what would be considered a strong and lively free market into a nation of citizens who see everything as a commodity available on the market, including things like, people's daily and personal lives (reality TV), personal tragedy, death, and gender choices, etc. It's Sandel's argument that this is a "slippery-slope" mentality that will lead to the loss of spiritual and moral boundaries, and that the market, although it is a good thing has the power to degrade and corrupt these things we hold valuable. …show more content…
It seems he loses gas when his work reaches this critical point in the reading. There is not much clarity around what can be described as a "liberal" point of view on the matter. It would have helped, let's say, that if he thought society should give merit and time to this subject of "good" which he defines as "a particular set of values about what constitutes a moral and worthwhile existence", he should have put more attention to that detail in his writing, for example, be clearer about what constitutes a "value" and why that is. It seems by how I read his work, that he gives us is his implied set of values he considers common to us all, in regard to cultural and religious traditions and practices. The problem I think is obvious in that is we will have no way, ever, of covering all of the different values and traditions of all of the communities. The point being is that we would be falling back into a kind of conservatism, culturally, in which a majority would be able to dictate to others what is appropriate. I call this a recycled