A Market Society is Ethically better than an Aristocratic Society

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The concept of market society
Introduction
Liberalisation and civilisation of markets
Market virtues and ethics
An overview of the aristocratic society
Conclusion
Reference List

The concept of market society

Scholars come up with several questions in the quest to evaluate what approaches should be taken to establish the relationship between the moral order and the market. For instance, different scholars have examined the set of moral orders upon which the concept of capitalism is based. This aspect in addition to a distinctive set of beliefs, social bonds, and habits stand out clearly in the market and various market structures.

This paper shall begin by evaluation of how Hirschman characterised contradicting views concerning the market, which included civilisation, feeble effects on society, and destruction. The study shall also involve a review of various studies to bring an intersection of sociology, political economics, and economics itself in a bid to demonstrate how these subjects exist as theories of market society and moral ethics behind the same.

In trying to justify the ethics behind market society as opposed to aristocratic society, this paper shall tackle the increasing prominence of moralised markets in economic sociology. While dealing with markets along this dimension, different markets stand out as moral projects and cultural phenomena in one way or another.

Introduction

In a bid to shed some light on the concept of market society and it ethics, different researchers have carried out several studies. Hirschman (1977) stipulated that most people perceived market to be the force behind civilisation. In the earlier centuries, through market relations, people socialised and maintained strong relations that barred them from fighting each other.

However, as time lapsed, this idea changed and towards the lapse of the 19^th century, the contrary took its shape. Economists such as Karl Marx came up to argue that capitalist society intended to undermine its morality and moral foundations, hence leading to an ultimate self-destruction (Hirschman, 1977).

However, supporters of the market society also came out strongly in defence and argued that the market remained a crucial essential good, although it was a bit weak. Due to the existence and persistence of institutional and cultural legacies, markets failed to realise the intended benefits, as supported by the absence of cultural and institutional heritage in the US economy.

This aspect explained the reason behind the success of that economy, while maintaining a recognisable moral character (Montesquieu et al, 1989). In his articles, Hirschman stipulated that markets tend to stand out as agents of civilisation, weakness, or destruction through the effects they shed upon the society.

This assertion sparked a defence from economists who endorsed positive effects of various markets upon social, political, and economic aspects of any particular society. Other critics of market came up with a view that they undermined the social relationships, corroded character, and encouraged corrupt political life (Montesquieu et al, 1989).

In this view, capitalist market structures are viewed as not depicting morality to the outside society (Weber, 1992). However, transaction relations and regulations on various countries and multi-corporations in the global market are maintained through morals in the market. This paper focuses on trends towards public justification of ethics as depicted by the market society.

Liberalisation and civilisation of markets

Competitive market structures are deemed as the best in terms of efficiency in the allocation of resources as well as satisfaction of individuals’ needs. This argument has stood and surpassed all tests as depicted by macro and microeconomics. According to neoclassical economists, individuals maximise their utility in any form of social relation (Sellers, 1991).

According to the principle agent theory, as individuals obtain information, they tend to cheat on various demands of an organisation. Likewise, the public choice theory holds that the same aspect underscores the nature of government as opposed to benevolence. Some of these issues depict a narrow gap between justice and considerations in the allocation of resources.

Various economic theories are built around clear assumptions whose moral contents can easily be identified. There are various benefits attached to the market society.

For instance, the market promotes individuals values and virtues that include cooperation, civilisation, and honesty. On cultural and political aspects, some people view markets as avenues of freedom. Currently, macroeconomics encapsulates markets as agents of economic growth.

Market virtues and ethics

Researchers have noted that markets depict both economic and social harmony within a society. Economic harmony is depicted through satisfaction of different needs, wants, and desires of different people. Due to many players in the market, business people tend to put their interests first, hence a check on individuals’ yearning for profits (Weber, 1992).

This scenario leads to human virtues such as honesty and politeness, hence social harmony. Therefore, through individual virtues and ethics, ethically responsible social institutions are created, and mentored towards inculcating those virtues in people.

According to some researchers, a market should depict virtues such as respect, modesty, trustworthiness, and enterprising motives among others (Weber, 1992). Through communication, ethics grow through conversations among people and transactions among strangers.

The concept of commerce relates deeply to the market. Moreover, commerce fosters cooperation through bringing different individual together, hence reducing social tension (Weber, 1992). However, most market relations are difficult to understand especially due the existence of international markets that are quite complex.

However, arguably, markets foster cooperation since there is no particular individual in control, whereas researchers have described countries involved in trade as civilised nations.

Moreover, membership into internationally recognised bodies is perceived as civilisation. Therefore, through markets, various transparent structures are created and they form a framework through which economical injustices and inequalities are addressed.

Market capitalism can be associated with personal and political freedom and the entire society in general, and thus through free markets, people are in a position to meet and satisfy their needs and desires.

Successful market structures in terms of incomes and employment yield some degree of satisfaction among people, hence making them happy. This observation holds because through empowering markets, people are also empowered although indirectly (Weber, 1992). Freedom is a crucial feature of a market that overcomes protection of various market structures.

Protective laws towards a market hinder people from choosing what they want, which is one of the factors that will hinder promotion of consumer sovereignty, hence political freedom in one way or the other. Getting people to the freedom where they can get what they want without restrictions depicts democracy within a society (Muller, 2002).

Through capitalism, competitive economic plans are implemented; therefore, defence against whimsical interference of the market by governments or concentration of economic powers among few rich individuals (Hirschman, 1977). However, this move calls for stringent measures on unethical practices among corporations and other organisations.

Although economists argue that free capitalism is delicate among developing economies, it is crucial for any growth to take place. In a bid to ensure its success, this element calls for free financial markets established through the opening of trans-border transactions.

This aspect also fosters accountability and transparency, hence implementation of powerful measures and regulations that deter few powerful individuals from interfering with the economy, which also fosters hard work where the rich will be at a position to remain rich as long as they remain productive and competitive (Muller, 2002).

Markets provide opportunities and incentives geared towards innovations in all sectors of the economy, which brings about overall growth and development within the society and its economy. Goods sold in a market are subject to the cultural aspect of the society within which an organisation operates.

This aspect can be counteracted through diversification in the production process especially now that there are international markets (Sellers, 1991). For instance, concentration on different lines of production leads to supply of a wide variety of goods and services to customers at a cheap price.

Due to exchange of cultural goods in the market, the process of cultural production is enhanced, hence the emergence of new forms of production due to diversification.

Whereas sociologists depict these techniques to identify different consumption behaviour, economists point out that it is an opportunity through which different goods and services are supplied into the market to satisfy needs and wants of various categories of consumers (Sellers, 1991).

An overview of the aristocratic society

According to Aristotle, the two distinctive ways of acquiring goods are natural and unnatural mechanisms. Natural mechanisms include barter trade or cash transactions and acquisition of goods from the nature for free (Aristotle, 1962). However, trade, which is heavily characterised by strong desires for monetary gains, is an unnatural mechanism.

In addition, he argues that although money transactions are part of household management, trade exceeds its features as a necessity for the maintenance of the society. Aristotle moves on to argue that goods are used for the purposes they were not intended, which is wrong.

He gives an example of a shoe that is exchanged for money. He postulates that in such a case, the shoe is used for a wrongful purpose, as it is not exclusively meant for exchange (Aristotle, 1962). Although he insists on the need for the society to trade to satisfy needs of people, I tend to differ with his opinion on transaction as he explains.

The market society encourages all forms of transactions to ensure satisfaction of various needs for it is clear that different people have different abilities, hence they tend to consume what they can produce and involve in trade to obtain what they cannot produce. Through this assertion, the market society is superior to aristocratic society, which argues that trade is not a sufficient way to satisfy individual needs.

According to Aristotle, the technique of exchange was not part of socialisation in the earlier days, as there was insignificant contact among members of different households. Exchange was purely to ensure equilibrium within the nature in a bid to ensure self-sufficiency.

However, monetary transactions came into being due to surplus production, hence inevitability into monetary exchanges (Aristotle, 1962). According to the market society, trade fosters cooperation among people, which leads to growth in the society courtesy of peaceful coexistence.

Apart from fostering growth and development, market capitalism overcomes aristocratic society for it fosters little association among people and does not encourage monetary transactions.

The Aristotle’s view that the introduction of coins led to greed among people has been challenged by the capitalism view of the market society. Aristotle argues that the coin can never be used to acquire necessities, as people tend to accumulate coins greedily, thus being meaningless.

This assertion depicts a factor of irresponsibility and unethical practices to some extent. However, Aristotle fails to come up with measures to curb these practices. According to the market society, there is a promotion of free trade, which has called for many entrants into the market; hence, different players tend to behave ethically to attract more customers.

The problem of illegal acquisition of wealth has been addressed through different mechanisms. Through the market society, various structures that promote transparency and accountability have been implemented, hence a limit on unethical acquisition of wealth.

Conclusion

Whereas Aristotle highly promoted the need for barter trade, he failed to address other issues that made monetary transaction unethical. He even argued that trade led to charging of an interest, and thus not a genuine form of exchange. He deeply shuns monetary transactions terming them as unnatural and proclaims that his objections rest on a social ground.

Appreciably, due to monetary transactions, various unethical practices are bound to arise if proper measures are not initiated. These issues have been identified by the market society and it has come up with measures to promote ethics in the market to safeguard monetary transactions that bring along with them various benefits to society.

The benefits include fostering cooperation among different people, promoting growth and development, political, and social freedom among others; therefore, a market society is ethically better than an aristocratic society.

Reference List

Aristotle. (1962) Politics. London: Penguin.

Hirschman, A. (1977) The Passions and the Interests. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Montesquieu, C. et al (1989) The Spirit of the Laws. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Muller, J. E. (2002) The Mind and the Market – Capitalism in Western Thought. New York: First Anchor Books.

Sellers, C. (1991) The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Weber, M. (1992) Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge.

Click Here To Order Now!