(Source: Youtube/New Economic Thinking)
For many economists, it is easy to think that all or most things can be put to the markets and let it decide the outcome. Michael Sandel does not think so. He has given a different perspective in his book and some of his speeches about the moral limits of markets for some services and goods. There are things that simply cannot be sold or bought, such as authentic friendship. And he argues, there are just things that technically can be sold or bought, but should not.
One of the examples he gave was about the Canadian government distributing quotas to Inuit people for hunting Walruses. The Canadian government came up with a policy that restricted the number of Walruses to be hunted and gave those quotas to the Inuit people, who were the indigenous people of the Arctic Region of Alaska, Greenland and Canada that had the tradition of hunting them for centuries. Decades later, the Inuit people came up with a proposal. They proposed that they could sell the quotas to other hunters from outside, and they promised they were not going to increase the number of Walruses to be hunted. This would just be like many other common practices that involve quotas in politics.
Another example he gave was about the American government allowing citizens who were drafted to the military to pay someone else to substitute themselves. In the time of Lincoln, (male) citizens would be drafted to join the military. This would be mandatory for them; however, if they wanted to pay someone else to take their place, they could.
These two examples are similar in the way that putting a price tag on the good or service would change the original value or meaning of it. “The market may crowd out values, norms, attitudes worth caring about.” Sandel said. The difference is that the latter one involved the trade of life-threatening risk; the former one involved only the trade for benefits by selling out or buying a right. Whether you think these two goods/services should be up for sale or not, I am sure that there must be things that you do not think should be up for sale.
What other goods/services would be really controversial if they were to be sold? Students paying someone to do their assignments would be one. Of course, this is currently not allowed by lecturers nor universities/schools (based on the code of conduct). But if there would be a debate of whether a university student should be allowed to pay another student/person to do their assignment, up for the public/the members of the university to debate, we can suppose that most would oppose to it (maybe except a few radical students). Why can’t we have a trade for this? Using classical economic thinking, there would be some utility and efficiency in this trade. If I had no time to do this assignment, or this was too difficult for me, or I could gain more utility from something else, then I should be allowed to pay someone who would be willing to do this. Perhaps I would be able to utilize the time for an assignment of another class and do better on that one. Perhaps I would be able to utilize the time for my part-time job. At the same time, someone else, who could do this assignment better than me, would be able to trade his/her service for money. We could both be better off. Then why are we forced to do assignments ourselves?
A student doing an assignment by him/herself is a reasonable duty imposed on them by the University and expected by the society. If we did not do assignments by ourselves, then the purpose of doing assignment, and even the purpose of education, would change. An assignment should be a tool to test our knowledge and thinking to evaluate whether we deserve to pass a class and get the degree. Allowing students to trade it would destroy the purpose/the value of this. There is a good reason that we are not allowed to let someone else do our assignments or take a test for us.
Many economists think they can away from value judgement and leave it to the public/the stakeholders to decide, but sometimes it is just unavoidable, especially if you are a public policy analyst or an adviser.
One of the examples he gave was about the Canadian government distributing quotas to Inuit people for hunting Walruses. The Canadian government came up with a policy that restricted the number of Walruses to be hunted and gave those quotas to the Inuit people, who were the indigenous people of the Arctic Region of Alaska, Greenland and Canada that had the tradition of hunting them for centuries. Decades later, the Inuit people came up with a proposal. They proposed that they could sell the quotas to other hunters from outside, and they promised they were not going to increase the number of Walruses to be hunted. This would just be like many other common practices that involve quotas in politics.
Another example he gave was about the American government allowing citizens who were drafted to the military to pay someone else to substitute themselves. In the time of Lincoln, (male) citizens would be drafted to join the military. This would be mandatory for them; however, if they wanted to pay someone else to take their place, they could.
These two examples are similar in the way that putting a price tag on the good or service would change the original value or meaning of it. “The market may crowd out values, norms, attitudes worth caring about.” Sandel said. The difference is that the latter one involved the trade of life-threatening risk; the former one involved only the trade for benefits by selling out or buying a right. Whether you think these two goods/services should be up for sale or not, I am sure that there must be things that you do not think should be up for sale.
What other goods/services would be really controversial if they were to be sold? Students paying someone to do their assignments would be one. Of course, this is currently not allowed by lecturers nor universities/schools (based on the code of conduct). But if there would be a debate of whether a university student should be allowed to pay another student/person to do their assignment, up for the public/the members of the university to debate, we can suppose that most would oppose to it (maybe except a few radical students). Why can’t we have a trade for this? Using classical economic thinking, there would be some utility and efficiency in this trade. If I had no time to do this assignment, or this was too difficult for me, or I could gain more utility from something else, then I should be allowed to pay someone who would be willing to do this. Perhaps I would be able to utilize the time for an assignment of another class and do better on that one. Perhaps I would be able to utilize the time for my part-time job. At the same time, someone else, who could do this assignment better than me, would be able to trade his/her service for money. We could both be better off. Then why are we forced to do assignments ourselves?
A student doing an assignment by him/herself is a reasonable duty imposed on them by the University and expected by the society. If we did not do assignments by ourselves, then the purpose of doing assignment, and even the purpose of education, would change. An assignment should be a tool to test our knowledge and thinking to evaluate whether we deserve to pass a class and get the degree. Allowing students to trade it would destroy the purpose/the value of this. There is a good reason that we are not allowed to let someone else do our assignments or take a test for us.
Many economists think they can away from value judgement and leave it to the public/the stakeholders to decide, but sometimes it is just unavoidable, especially if you are a public policy analyst or an adviser.
No comments:
Post a Comment