Justice and Markets

"Philosophy estranges us from the familiar, not by supplying new information, but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing, but, and here’s the risk: once the familiar turns strange, its never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence; however unsettling you find it, it can never be unthought, or unknown. "

That is how Professor Michael Sandel ends his first lecture on Justice, a Harvard course running for the past 20 years. If you haven't seen its lectures available online, I highly recommend that you do. In this post, I intend to discuss one particular topic Prof. Sandal talks about, that of Morality and Efficacy of Markets. No, we are not going to talk about economics, or debate free market vs regulated one. We will instead talk about moral value of things, and of markets. 

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product...if we should judge American by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. 

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. "

- John F. Kennedy, 1968

Prof Sandal might be considered old-school, in that his views are more strongly influenced by Archimedes theory of Telos, the end-purpose of things. Unlike theories of Utilitarianism(maximum good for maximum people) and Libertarian (rights of the individual), which are always at odds with one another and does not consider differences among people, societies and situations, the theory of Telos is applied always specifically to the situation at hand. It postulates that to determine the justice in any situation regarding an social institution, we must first decide what was the purpose of creation of that institution, what role it satisfies in society. 

Would you pay your child to learn? This would make it a more free-market situation, compared to coercing the activity out of her. But would you consider it amiss if I say something is lost, when you start rewarding activities which should be inherently pleasurable. How many of you have noticed that once your hobby becomes a more directly rewarding, it is not so pleasurable any more.

I do not know whether it is because of my upbringing or an individual choice (it doesn't matter), but my own views have started reflecting Prof Sandal's. To have a world where a life of meaning is still possible, we need to have a better look at what our institutions mean and stand for and what we are doing with them (big words, probably silly and precocious, but I let them be uttered).

What is the Telos of a business? I would like to believe it is 'to make money satisfying the needs of society'. But the public-company institution, by separating the owners and executioners, it is no-ones responsibility to look after the society. No-one is culpable. Marketers intend to 'create needs' and demand, rather than satisfying them.

Consider the Quota debate of IITs. The objectors lay a monomaniac emphasis on the impact quota will have on 'quality' of students. I am a supporter of affirmative action but in this case, the IITs have for too long and too loudly blown the trumpet of academic excellence and selecting the cream (and socially inept) of students through JEE. The government has been in on this. Hence my opinion is that the IIT directors and government as well as the general public, should have a common opinion of what the mission of IITs is, not what was written some 50 years ago, for have a peaceful debate. 

---------------------------

Most of us are firm believers of meritocracy. We believe that each of us should have equal opportunity to success in life and are pained that it is not so. However, even if a person, has equal opportunity, is he sufficiently equipped to access it? With prices of higher education and even good primary schools ever increasing, even a free job-market does not imply equal opportunity. 

But this is very basic reasoning. My question is, even if we receive equal preparation, and are renumarated according to our skill and determination, then, is it fair to say that, we deserve what we have? That we have earned it? That is a tricky question.