Introduction
Since the 19th century, humanity has constantly been arguing about the morality of market societies versus non-market ones and whether the market is a driver of societal corruption. This discourse began with Karl Marx, who stated that “the market transforms man into “an abstract being, an automaton, and […] a spiritual and physical monster” in his works (Choi and Storr 42).
Discussion
Nowadays, market defenders and opponents argue across diverse academic fields, including ethics, philosophy, economics, and sociology. Choi and Storr are in the first category, and they think that market countries have a higher morality than societies without markets (49). Their perspective would be of interest to both thinkers and economists.
Factors due to which market societies are more moral than non-market states include freedom of operations and a multitude of opportunities. Combined, these provide individuals acting in markets with space, autonomy, and tools to explore the nature and nuances of morality and ethics. According to experts, societies where the market is absent or prohibited, are “missing out on opportunities for their members to learn virtues and to grow morally” (Choi and Storr 49). Excessive, dictatorial restrictions or lack of fundamental institutions limit the ways for each person and community as a whole to define and distinguish virtues and vices clearly and build a robust societal structure of mutual trust, honesty, and transparency. Within non-markets, the profit and loss mechanism cannot work correctly because some actors, most often these are governments, do not experience losses while others do not benefit from exchange interactions.
Conclusion
As a result, all groups cannot gain deeper knowledge of virtues and vices from their experiences and mistakes and, consequently, develop complex morals.
Work Cited
Choi, Ginny Seung, and Virgil Henry Storr. “Measuring Markets and Morality.” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, vol. 13, no. 1, 2020, pp. 42–60. Web.