User:Nacson5/sandbox

Question Topic
Within contemporary society, capitalism and neoclassical market reasoning has dominated the conventional norms of society. As a result, society prioritizes and integrates market logic within almost every aspect of public life, consisting of social, cultural, political, religious, moral and environmental considerations. Therefore, this Wikipedia report will dwell on these considerations from a moral framework and discuss the topic question:

'' Why does money seem to corrupt or diminish public goods? ''



Key Words
Incentive, Money, Motivation, Moral Limitation

Human Behavior, Utility, Ethics and Economics,

Public Goods, Corruption, Value.

Definitions
Homo-economicus: is the economic theory that people understand their self-interest and recognize how to maximize their interest through economic utility.

Public goods: is a good that is non-excluded or intangible from people based on price. Furthermore, the good in of itself is not diminished or depleted if others choose to use the good. For example, public information is recognized as a public good. In this context, if one chooses to use the public information, the information in of itself is not depleted.

Common Goods: are goods that are essentially natural goods shared among members of society, such as air and water.

Utility: is the economic notion referring to amount of pleasure an individual receives from consuming a good or service. Within economic theory, particularly within micro-economics, random quantifiable numbers are distributed to indicate the total utility a person receives by consuming any given amount of a good or service.

Externality: is the economic notion to describe the effects to a third party when the initial part is conducting in exchange. In other words, an externality is used to describe the negative or positive effects that a third party encounters when two initial parties are engaging in a business transaction. This third party does not necessarily have to be involved within the transaction, however if they are effected in some social, economic or environmental manner, they implicitly become an externality. For example, during the financial collapse in 2008, many Americans lost their jobs, homes and savings due to the economic downturn caused by inflated housing prices and CDO's.

Commodification: the process of transforming a good, service or object into a quantifiable product that is typically bought and sold within a market.

Key Assumptions and Why Money is Incorporated
There are numerous assumptions concerning this question. The first contemporary assumption to this debate is that money motivates individuals. According to economists, people are self-interested, understand their interests and seek reward that maximizes their utility. This notion can be also known as Homo-economicus. The theory is used to describe rational human behavior according to market reasoning, in which individuals understand their best interest and seeks goods that maximizes their utility. Another assumption is that money and markets are used in an effective way to allocate resources in an efficient manner. This idea stems from popular theorist Adam Smith, that discusses the notion of the invisible hand  [4]  [5]  [5]  [5]  [5]  [5]  [5]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4]  [4] . In this framework, money is used as a strategic tool to allocate goods and services to untouched markets, creating efficiencies and supplying demand.This approach is highly favored by neoclassical economists, which simply argue that money and markets seem to be the determining factor to stimulate individual needs and maximize social and economic utility.

Another key assumption is concentrated on the notion of public goods. In this framework, public goods is referring to the goods and services that are not necessarily owned or operated by a singular entity, rather these goods maintain a sense of purity that is decoupled from the aspect of money. This is one of the ideas discussed within Michael Sandel's book called "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets". A public good can be categorized as public information and the environment. Public goods, or sometimes refereed to as the common goods, are goods that are used collectively by any given community, free from monetary compensation. As mentioned, public information, the environment, water, oxygen etc, can all be categorized as public goods that one single entity does not control, rather it is widely used by the populous.

Money however does in fact play a key role within our society. Currency is used for numerous things, however the considerable power money obtains can be used for corruption and fraud. Ironically enough, money is also used as a tool to measure the value of a good or service, yet when money is incorporated into certain areas of life, it seems to degrade or diminish the value of that good. This is the general idea that Sandel is seeking to elaborate on. Nonetheless, there are certain areas of contemporary society that money or markets should not be integrated.

Finally, one pro-neoclassical economic argument is the notion that there is a price for any good. In this framework, public goods do in fact have a price, however this price is determined based on the amount one is willing or ought to pay for that particular public good. For instance, Sandel describes in his book that companies in certain countries offer citizens the opportunity tattoo their forehead with company advertisements for a certain price. Although many argue that this appears to be an unorthodox practice, there is an element of corruption involved in terms of devaluing the human body.

Sandel's Contention
Prior to evaluating Sandel's contention, it is important to describe his account on corruption. Sandel explains that, "to corrupt a good or a social practice is to degrade it, to treat it according to a lower mode of valuation than is appropriate to it". Sandel describes an interesting argument to distinguish how money enters or creates unorthodox markets. In this framework, Sandel situates the neo-classical argument economists make, which is that if people are willing to pay for a good and service in order to maximize their utility, people should be allowed to do so as long as it does not infringe on other peoples rights. In fact, economists find this efficient to do so by allowing people to place prices on objects gives them the free will to do as they please. There arguments are summed up to describe the libertarian and utilitarian arguments concerning moral limitations of the market. Sandel however states that the issue concerning this logic is that "the growing reach of money and markets into spheres of life once governed by non-market norms". In simple terms, Sandel claims that there are certain things within society that should not be commodified because it devalues or diminishes the good in of itself. According to this reasoning, people should not have the right to buy or sell certain things because it degrades that good. For example, companies that sell rights to pollute should not be aloud to do so based on moral and economic considerations. The moral consideration is understood to imply that the environment is not owned by any entity and therefore causing harm to the environment for example would be morally unjust. According to the economic reasoning however, by paying to offset the environmental cost is economically inefficient since it imposes an unquantifiable cost on the externalities involved.

According to Sandel, once society allows certain goods to be bought and sold, it implicitly indicated that such goods are now commodities used to seek profit. Using a more extreme example, slavery at one point in history was socially acceptable and people were essentially bought and sold at auction. Although within contemporary society slavery is objectively observed as an abomination, Sandel uses this example in order to emphasize his argument. In this framework, Sandel is explaining that there are some things that cannot be bought or sold using market reasoning, such as public goods.

Philosophical Counter Argument
Jason Brennan & Peter Jaworski: Brenna & Jaworski assert in their article that they too agree that certain things should not be bought and sold within the market. While other moral philosophers argues that such things should not consist of market reasoning, Brennan and Jaworski argue that markets are not the corrupting factor that make the goods corrupt. In other words, there is "a class of goods and services that ought not to be for sale because they ought not to be possessed or done, period". This assertion stems from The Principle of Wrongful Possession. which essentially describes the notion that if it is inherently wrong to posses an object, it is therefore wrong to buy or sell such objects. For instance, the authors describe that it is inherently wrong to possess child pornography, therefore is it morally wrong to sell it. However, markets are not corrupting this object, rather the object is already inherently corrupt. As the authors explains, "the market might incentivize people to do wrongful actions, but the actions aren’t wrongful because they were done on the market". Furthermore, the authors introduce the notion of Markets without Limits, which is referring to the idea that if one can do something for free, they can therefore sell it for money. Therefore, while Sandel argues that markets corrupt goods, Brennan & Jaworski argue that if the public goods are free, they can be bought and sold within the market. Within this framework, public goods are typically goods that are free from governance or controlling ownership, therefore according to Brenna & Jaworski, public goods should be allowed to be bought and sold within the market. As a result, there is no element of corruption or devaluation of public goods.

Study Cases & Examples
Line Standing Business: In 2010, a public performance for the musical The Merchant of Venice was being held in New York City's pubic theater. The entrance charges were free, however people decided to wait in line and sell their tickets to the highest bidders that wanted to see the play. In this case, the musical is recognized as a public good since it was free of charge and offered to the general public. According to Sandel, the thing that is being devalued is the play, because it was initially designed as a gift to the community, but since businesses decided to sell their tickets, it spoils the gift.

Another example of this practice is observed during congressional hearings. In this framework, when congress is processing a congressional hearing, any citizen has the right to attend the hearing. However, since there are only a limited amount of seats within the room, numerous line standing companies choose to employ individuals and pay them an hourly wage to receive a spot in the hearing. This person's seat is later sold to a politician or someone with significant power at a marked up price. In this framework, the thing that is being corrupted according to Sandel is the congressional hearing because we are treating it to a lower norm. In other words, similar to a judge that takes bribes to change a legal outcome, allowing people to sell their tickets to politicians appears to corrupt the whole purpose of the hearing. Selling Rights to Pollute: There are numerous laws concentrated on limiting pollution emissions due to the conventional notions concerning climate change and public health/ safety. Nonetheless, the European Union allows certain companies the right to buy, sell and trade the rights to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In this framework, the public good is referring to the environment as a whole that unequivocally effects people. By allowing companies to buy and sell the rights of carbon emissions implicitly places individuals as an unaccounted externality. However aside from the economic considerations, there are numerous moral and ethical accounts to consider when evaluating this case study. Does the right of a corporation triumph a humans rights to healthy oxygen or vise versa. Does a government have the authority to sell such rights to any given corporation. Is there any moral limitation to the notion that markets should not be intertwined within such a public good or has it become the status quo? Education and Housing: Today, certain politicians recognize education and affordable housing as a public good. However, this is an example that requires further investigation due to the enormous amounts of political views from either side of the spectrum. In this framework, education in some respect is recognized as a public good, and it is the right of every human being to have access to such public information. Education in this context however refers to the schooling system. Although in the United States, there are politicians such as Bernie Sanders that pledges to have a free educational system, many on the other political spectrum argue that it is not a right for people to have access to education. Rather is it a commodity that should be sold in the market. Sanders also argues that affordable housing is too a public good, explaining that housing costs in the United States is unattainable and requires government intervention in order to make housing more feasible. Although many argue that housing should be affordable, several politicians recognize that government intervention is not the solution and the market should be able to sort itself out.

Education during adolescence also presents an interesting account on public goods. Assuming the general consensus is that education is a public good, certain schools within California offer their students an incentive program. This program is designed to encourage children to get good grades by paying them for their academic achievements. Other schools in Dallas have adopted a similar program by giving out cash incentives for the number of books students read. Although this is not typically the status quo, these programs appear to present the notion that money corrupts the public good. In this content, the public good being education, is merely devalued by the introduction of money. Aside from the fact that this implicitly causes numerous issues for children throughout their adolescence, parents that do pay into the educational system are now having their children paid to read. COVID-19: During recent developments, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that COVID-19 is now globally recognized as a pandemic. As a result, people find this as a market opportunity in terms purchasing household essentials and reselling them to the public for a profit. For example, a couple located in British Columbia has purchased thousands of Lysol wipes from numerous retail stores, resold them to consumers through online platforms and have profited over $100,000. The general census to this example is that when money or profit is introduced into the circumstance, it appears to corrupt or diminish the good. Some people argue that price gouging customers is immoral, unjust and exploitative during harsh circumstances since people simply have no alternatives. On the other side of this spectrum, some argue that this is simply free market activity and therefore people must respect the drive and hustle for their entrepreneurial spirit. Nonetheless, the element of corruption and devaluation appears in this framework. In this context, people generally regard this as a corrupt process and blame major social media and trading platforms for allowing this practice to evolve. In response, Kijiji has chosen to remove all listing that sellers post relating to certain products in order to limit the amount of price gouging on their platform. Nonetheless, although these products sold are not necessarily considered to be public goods, there is undoubtedly an elements of corruption and exploitation involved.

Health Care: Another example related to this topic is the notion that money corrupts health services. Within the Canadian context, health-care is provided to citizens on a free basis. This public good has helped many Canadian citizens in terms of improving their overall health, without the burden of financial indebtedness. However, certain health professionals have now entered into the private sector by providing private clinical services to affluent individuals. In this case, doctors provide better and more immediate services to those willing to pay the additional fees, while those that simply cannot afford the service, opt out and use the general health care system provided to all Canadian citizens. Many argue that this shares an element of corrupting public goods for several reasons. One of the arguments is that affluent individuals should not be aloud to jump the que simply because of their socio-economic status. Another argument is doctors and health administrators should not be allowed to provide a separate or private service because they will have an incentive to provide better services to those that are willing to pay higher prices.

Conclusion
Money and markets play a key role to the success or failure on any given economic system. Nonetheless, money has situated numerous questionable markets that create moral limitations. Furthermore, society has slowly allowed market reasoning into untouched social norms and public goods, which has disrupted and diminished the good in of itself. Sandel's argument therefore appears to consist of ethical merit, which puts into questions several newly developed markets and personal values. There is a popular saying, which explains that there is a price for anything and anything can be sold as long as someone else finds it valuable. Value therefore is subjective, since the good is only determined valuable if someone else is willing to pay for it. The irony in this context is that society has aloud market reasoning to enter the equation because they feel that price is supposed to bring additional value while maximizing social utility. However, public goods are completely devalued when placing a price on them. In other words, they might have a quantifiable price, but they become intrinsically devalued.