Business ethics

Shahzaib Asim 20181-24813

Moral limits of markets: Michael Sandel
1. Briefly distinguish between market economy and market society.
Market economy is a valuable and effective tool for organizing productive
activities
Market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale. Basically
it is a way of life where market thinking and market values reach in to the
spheres of life previously governed by other non market values.

2. Is it always right to use cash incentive to solve social problems?

Briefly respond in the light of Michael Sandel’s views.
It is not always preferable to use cash incentives for social problems because
sometime it leads to a different personality build up. It fabricates the essence
of having passion or genuinely being concerned about a social issue. In
accordance with Michael Sandel's view point, cash incentives for solving
social problems will lead to individuals driven my cash and expecting
financial rewards in all cases and matters crowding out the purpose and
focus of the problem itself.
3.  Is there something wrong with (a) providing upgraded prisons
to rich prisoners who are willing to pay for this convenience,
(b) and offering dollars to drug-addicted would-be mothers for
being willing to be sterilized? Briefly Explain.
1- Providing upgraded prisons to rich prisoners who can afford it for their
convenience is wrong because this crowds out their crime for being in jail.
Despite being in prison, they are still enjoying the luxuries which diverts the
attention of being in prison and actual sanctions practiced against them.
2- Providing dollars to drug addictive mothers for sterilisation is not
something wrong because this crowds out the bad over the good. There is
more benefit of it individually and collectively to a state rather an a
disadvantage or harm. Hence, this is not wrong as healthy mothers will
 further cultivate a healthier generation. This concerns for a collective as well
as personal interest.

4. What do you think are some of the domains where market

morality does not apply or should not apply? Briefly Explain.
Access to education, access to justice and political influence are domains
where market morality does not or shouldn't apply to. Giving incentives to
students according to their grades and incentives as such.

5. Mention some of the things that money cannot buy even if it

strives to.
Passion and love for something, peace of mind or mental
happiness, the realization of moral or ethical, these are things
money can not buy.
6. Mention some of the things that money can buy (it the ability
to buy) but it should not buy.
Prison cell upgrades, buying and selling of human organs, human
blood donation, the right to kill an endangered animal, buying
carbon credits to pollute, these are some of the things money can
buy but it shouldn't buy these.

7. Does the value/meaning of something diminish just because it

is purchased? Give an example
The value or meaning of something diminishes as soon as it gets
purchased. For example, the passion to read books. If students are
offered financial incentive for every time they read a book, the
quantity of books they read might increase, but the quality of
reading will decrease. The kind of books they'd start reading might
not be relevant for their progress or knowledge but something
irrelevant or temporarily satisfying. Hence, their passion for book
reading will diminish because they'd read a book only when they're
given a cash incentive. The passion or value of reading will hence
be purchased and will no longer be essential for individual growth.
8. What is the argument in favour of having market, for example,
of blood supply?
Economist would argue that creating a market for blood actually
adds to the virtue of the system because it increases individual
choice and freedom.  In other words, if someone still wants to
donate blood for free, they can.  But if they prefer to sell their
blood, they now have this option too.  And theoretically, this
should make more blood available to those in need, as blood can
be received from people with different motivations.

9. Why were the people willing and why they refused to let their
vicinity be used as a nuclear waste site in Switzerland?
51% people were encouraged and in favour to allow their vicinity
as a nuclear waste site because they show it as a civic
responsibility, a sacrifice. They were ready to accept the risks and
burden for the sake of a common good. However when given an
incentive of almost $8000 as a compensation or so, there was a
paradox. The stats dropped from 51% to 25% because now people
thought they were being bribed and they were subjecting their
families to a great risk only for money. They believed they moving
away from what they previously showed acceptance for as a civic
sacrifice.