Goverment Homework Discussion Post (Reply)

 

YOU ARE TO REPLY TO THIS STUDENTS POST NO LESS THAN 250 WORDS NO MORE THAN 300 WORDS. NO PLAGIARISM. I AHVE ATTACHED THE ORIGINL

 

Ken Ewert’s article Moral Criticisms of the Market (1989) explores the subject of religion and economics, and rebuts the leftist views of the “Christian Socialists” in regards to the free market system. He does a phenomenal job of breaking down the morality of the free market and examining the traits of selfishness, materialism, impersonalism and individualism, community relationships, economic power, and economic ability to please.

With regards to selfishness, Ewert made a great distinction that a self-directed action can happen in one of two ways: “through mutually beneficial economic exchanges, or through predatory political actions” (1989). This cuts to the core of selfishness in a free market. We have the ability to choose our actions, and selfishness is not a requirement for success. I slightly disagree, however, with his views on materialism. While advertisement does give customers important information about products, it can equally be misleading. A consumer may receive just as much misleading information from an advertisement as sound material. I do agree with Ewert’s (1989) assertion that materialism is a problem of all economic systems, as well as his views on impersonalism and individualism. I worked as a waitress for quite a while, and formed many personal relationships with customers; my tips were better if I had a personal relationship with the customer. A free market definitely doesn’t always encourage impersonalism and individualism, nor does it discourage community relationships. Ewert’s (1989) stance on how economic intervention, not the free market, has actually disintegrated family bond is interesting, and a claim I am not sure I agree with, however I am not able to refute his statements on the subject. Ewert’s (1989) comments about economic power were thought-provoking, as I had never thought much into the subject. He made a great point in that an employee chooses to work for an employer because the benefits, even if seemingly small, outweigh the consequences, such as moving costs and loss of local friendships. The last subject Ewert (1989) touches on is economic ability to please. I agree with everything he says in this section, especially his comments about politicians and the “powerful oppressing the weak” (Ewert, 1989).

Overall, I think Ewert did a fantastic job refuting the claims that “Christian Socialists” make about the free market. His statements assume that people have the ability to delve down into the root of what causes our behaviors and thoughts. God has given us that ability, although sometimes it may be hard to put into practice.

Running head: GOVERNMENT HOMEWORK DISCUSSION POST 1

GOVERNMENT HOMEWORK DISCUSSION POST 3

Government Homework Discussion Post

Student’s Name:

Institution’s Name:

Ken S. Ewert in “Moral Criticisms of the Market” has done a superb task of defending free market from criticisms of “Christian Socialists.” I totally agree with his perspective that Christian’s moral view of the free market has a shortfall. The market has been accused of ethical issues of selfishness/ individualism and materialism. Christians have argued that in free market, human character that was God’s most desired thing in human creature has been eroded, providing a chance for people to indulge excessively on individual concerns (Ewert, K., 1989).

According to Christians, free market promotes selfishness and therefore sin. They argue that selfishness increase with the abundance of commodities one can choose from in the market; forcing individuality, something God never planned for humanity (Ewert, K., 1989). Ewert argues that Christians do not know that the root cause of sin is falleness of man, but not the market. He submits that the market in itself is morally neutral, and the free market creates means for generation of wealth that can be used for charity.

Another accusation against the free market is materialism in terms of economic power which is associated with market resource mobilization. A capable man, since he is able to survive in difficult times, is seen as an oppressor of the poor, going against the biblical teachings (Ewert, K., 1989). According to Ewert (1989), free market gives individuals liberty to choose and set their goals and priorities, but does not dictate. An individual’s self-indulgence is purely their personal choice (Ewert, K., 1989).

I support Ewert’s argument that free market restrains sins without pretending to purge people from their selfishness or materialistic characters. Morality of a person cannot be changed by an economic system but his/her restrain to external expression of sin. This is what free market does.

References

Ken. Ewert (1989). “Moral Criticisms of the Market” -Retrieved from

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/moral-criticisms-of-the-market#axzz2b2UeszQb

on 06/08/2013.