Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter August 21, 2015

Ethics and the Reach of Actually Existing Capitalist Markets

David Sherman

Abstract

Although philosophers tend to differ in terms of the criteria that they offer for determining when market transactions should be morally prohibited, they tend to converge with respect to a certain methodological bias: they fail to reflexively consider how the existing politico-economic context bears on the way in which they formulate these criteria. After discussing the nature of actually existing, rather than idealized, markets, I consider four such offerings, which are either liberal egalitarian or communitarian, and I articulate how this failure is manifested in their respective positions. I conclude by pointing toward an alternative approach to the question of marketization, one that is both methodologically and substantively more faithful to the scope of the underlying problems that this question raises.

References

Anderson, E. (1993). Value in Ethics and Economics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Booth, W. (1994). ‘On the Idea of the Moral Economy’, The American Political Science Review 88(3): 653–667.Search in Google Scholar

Faux, J. (2012). The Servant Economy (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons).Search in Google Scholar

Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Search in Google Scholar

Glyn, A. (2006). Capitalism Unleashed (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Hacker, J.S. and Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-Take-All Politics (New York: Simon & Schuster).Search in Google Scholar

Keat, R. (2006). “Liberalism, neutrality, and varieties of capitalism’, unpublished manuscript http://www.russellkeat.net.Search in Google Scholar

Lessig, L. (2011). Republic, Lost (New York: Hatchette Book Group).Search in Google Scholar

MacIntyre, A. (1998). ‘Politics, Philosophy and the Common Good’, in K. Knight (ed.). The MacIntyre Reader (Cambridge: Polity Press).Search in Google Scholar

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1992). The Communist Manifesto (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books).Search in Google Scholar

Nozick, R. (1989). The Examined Life (New York: Simon and Schuster).Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Polanyi, K. (2001). The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston: Beacon Press).Search in Google Scholar

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone (New York: Simon & Schuster).Search in Google Scholar

Radin, M.J. (1987). ‘Market-Inalienability’, Harvard Law Review 100(8): 1849–1937.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Satz, D. (2010). Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Sandel, M.J. (2012). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Morals (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux).Search in Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom (New York: Random House Books).Search in Google Scholar

Smith, A. (1999). The Wealth of Nations, Books I-III (New York: Penguin Classics).Search in Google Scholar

Smith, A. (2000). The Wealth of Nations, Books IV-V (New York: Penguin Classics).Search in Google Scholar

Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality (New York: W.W. Norton and Company).Search in Google Scholar

Tomasi, J. (2012). Free Market Fairness (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books)Search in Google Scholar

Walzer, M. (1987). Interpretation and Social Criticism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Williams, B. (1973). ‘The Idea of Equality’, in Problems of the Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 230–249.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-08-21
Published in Print: 2015-11-01

©2015 by De Gruyter