Morality must be safeguarded by the citizens

[coberst]

Morality must be safeguarded by the citizens

I was listening to the radio the other day and the speaker said something to the effect ‘let the market decide the value of our higher education system…and the market appears to think that our higher education system is doing a good job’.

Is it wise to allow the market to set the standard of value for our colleges and universities?

Philosopher, tycoon, philanthropist, author, and international political activist George Soros said in his book “Open Society” that as an anonymous market participant I never had to weigh the social consequences of my action. “Still my decisions had social consequences…When I sold sterling short in 1992, the Bank of England was on the other side of my transactions, and I was in effect taking money out of the pockets of British taxpayers…Britain would have devalued sterling whether I had been born or not.”

Soros makes clear that he recognizes that the argument ‘If I didn’t do it someone else would’ holds true only for financial markets. Anonymous market participants are immune from moral considerations as long as they play by the rules. In this sense financial markets are not immoral; they are amoral.

There is a difference between immorality and amorality. Amorality makes markets more efficient and without this difference such markets could not flourish. Soros argues that such an argument applies to the person who considers her or him self as being a moral person or not.

Collective values must be safe guarded by collective political and civic actions and institutions. The amorality of the markets makes it essential that social values find expression in the rules that govern financial markets.

Rules are made by the authorities and the authorities are chosen by the citizens. Morality must be safeguarded by the citizens. If the citizen fails to meet some minimum level of civic responsibility, is that citizen acting in an amoral manner or in an immoral manner?

 

[Zep]

When you say "fails to meet some minimum level of civic responsibility", are you meaning "fails to carry out" civic responsibilities or "fails to adhere to" them?

 

[coberst]

When you say "fails to meet some minimum level of civic responsibility", are you meaning "fails to carry out" civic responsibilities or "fails to adhere to" them?

Both

 

[simonmaal]

Utopian social engineering programs are as doomed to failure today as they ever were.

 

[Zep]

Both

Big differences between the two.

"Failure to carry out" civic responsibilities could be simply neglect or possibly just ennui. Not voting, avoiding jury duty, not a nice neighbour, etc, etc. Not illegal, just not contributory to good civic pride and operation - merely not laudable.

"Failure to adhere" to civic responsibilities would be more serious: Refusing to comply with local municipal laws, creating actual hazards for neighbours (dogs, rubbish, guns, etc), bad driving, obtaining public aid under false pretences, etc, etc. Bordering on or being frankly illegal. Not only not laudable, but condemnable.

 

[phildonnia]

...George Soros said in his book “Open Society” that as an anonymous market participant I never had to weigh the social consequences of my action...

As I'm sure you are aware, we are almost always complete idiots with respect to predicting social consequences of our actions, let alone weighing them.

Anonymous market participants are immune from moral considerations as long as they play by the rules.

That makes no sense. Moral considerations are the rules. The rules are the moral considerations.

If the citizen fails to meet some minimum level of civic responsibility, is that citizen acting in an amoral manner or in an immoral manner?

If the "minimum level" is "Thou shalt not steal", failure at an individual level is immoral. Big whoop. Put it this way: if Soros had _not_ sold short the pound because of so-called moral considerations, effectively there would be extra made-up rules applied in the middle of the game, essentially stealing his money for the benefit of long investors. That would be immoral. It would also be immoral for Soros to fraudulently represent faith in a currency that he did not feel was the most efficient store of wealth.

 

[chriswl]

Collective values must be safe guarded by collective political and civic actions and institutions. The amorality of the markets makes it essential that social values find expression in the rules that govern financial markets.

I wouldn't say that social values directly "find expression in" the rules of the market. Just that the market, as constituted by whatever regulations we choose to make should serve broader social purposes. The rules themselves need not directly address social issues and market participants need not directly consider them.

Rules are made by the authorities and the authorities are chosen by the citizens. Morality must be safeguarded by the citizens. If the citizen fails to meet some minimum level of civic responsibility, is that citizen acting in an amoral manner or in an immoral manner?

There is no objective way of judging whether someone is acting immorally. Morality and law are not identical.

 

[coberst]

As I'm sure you are aware, we are almost always complete idiots with respect to predicting social consequences of our actions, let alone weighing them.



That makes no sense. Moral considerations are the rules. The rules are the moral considerations.



If the "minimum level" is "Thou shalt not steal", failure at an individual level is immoral. Big whoop. Put it this way: if Soros had _not_ sold short the pound because of so-called moral considerations, effectively there would be extra made-up rules applied in the middle of the game, essentially stealing his money for the benefit of long investors. That would be immoral. It would also be immoral for Soros to fraudulently represent faith in a currency that he did not feel was the most efficient store of wealth.

Soros, who is an expert about financial markets and is, in my opinion, a very accomplished philosopher, says that financial markets are amoral because they cannot function efficiently except in that mode and that the individual can operate rationally and morally by accepting this fact because the individual cannot really effect the market by any form of moral considerations.

Soros says the attitude, “if I do not act on this matter then someone else will”, is acceptable as justification for considering the matter to be amoral. He did add that since he was now in the position to effect the financial markets by his action, because of his promanance, that this justification now longer held in his case.

 

[coberst]

I wouldn't say that social values directly "find expression in" the rules of the market. Just that the market, as constituted by whatever regulations we choose to make should serve broader social purposes. The rules themselves need not directly address social issues and market participants need not directly consider them.


There is no objective way of judging whether someone is acting immorally. Morality and law are not identical.

See my response in the post above.

I tend to agree with your last statement. Soros, as my preceeding post indicates, sees it otherwise. I have much respect for Soros as a philosopher and so I might also tend to reexamine my agreement.