As far as I'm concerned, I feel that markets can be moral if they
choose to be. Interpreting Maslow's hierarchy of needs, only after one
provides for one's basic needs can one then question one's motivations
to do so. Markets can be moral after progessing to a level of
self-sufficiency; they then obtain the navel-gazing abilities that we
see in the developed world. "The savage punishments and casual
indignities of two centuries ago are no longer acceptable to civilized
people. Nor are slavery and serfdom, both of which were rendered
obsolete and immoral under the capitalist system" (Wilson and Wolf,
2003). These markets have to progress through the ruthless, rapacious
stage of development in order for them to eventually find their moral
compass.
Once national markets progress to the point of moral self-regulation,
they must place ethical, environmental, and human rights restrictions
upon their capitalistic efforts. "In the advanced market economies,
people care deeply about eliminating pain and injustice and ensuring the
welfare of fellow humans and, more recently, animals. This concern
exists because a rich, liberal society places enormous emphasis on the
health and well-being of the individual" (Ibid.).
But who is to arbitrate this better way? Who shall guide the efforts of
the capitalist economy? "A planned economy, by contrast, will always go
hand-in-hand with tyranny. Vaclav Havel, erstwhile dissident and later
president of the Czech Republic, has pointed out that a government that
controls the economy will inevitably also control the civic life of a
nation" (Ibid.). The opposite of laissez-faire, such an economy would
have to be regulated by a person or group trustworthy enough to not
shape that economic destiny to their own ends. This implies planned
economies, which history shows are untrustworthy custodians of a
nation's human and environmental stewardship.
Sources:
Wilson, James Q., and Martin Wolf. “The Morality of the Market,” Foreign
Policy, September/October 2003, pp. 47-50.
