Disciplining People with Money edit
Morality is a process of identifying the target of deliberation, to enable discussions about the intersections of concepts and ideas, that are related to people, institutions and society.[1]
Michael Sandel criticizes market virtues; stating that they become conflicted when society enters the domain of what has been deemed right or desired by communities.
When non-market goods or services (health, education, parenting) are commodified, market virtues may affect the traditional social norms and attitudes, that already exist. This bares the risk of corrupting[2] other values that are important to citizens. In cases like this, a moral assessment may be useful.
The economic virtue of the market is efficiency; to allocate goods and services to those who value them the most, (without judgement). This is expressed by the willingness to pay.
Authorities use monetary fees and fines as incentives to promote societal virtues,[3], and to discipline and inform policy and civic education. A fine represents a moral judgement or incentive of a wrongful act or attitude. In addition, when an affluent person or country pays a fine (out of convenience), factors of inequality are raised, because they treat a fine as a fee. A fee may represent no moral disapproval, this may fail to motivate people into action. [1] To understand the failed incentives (fines and fees), what are cases where the introduction of money (for example a fine or a fee) fails to discipline people's behavior and how can the failure be explained? Sandel states that the realm of moral questioning in markets, will help authorities (government and institutions) to achieve hopeful ends.
Sandel's Fees and Fines Argument edit
Research Question edit
What are cases where the introduction of money (for example a fine or a fee) fails to discipline people's behavior and how can the failure be explained?
Failed Case Example(s) edit
Sandel states that when authorities (government and institutions) choose to commodify a good, we must consider more than efficiency and distributive justice. Since market norms alienate nonmarket norms, it is important to morally assess the risk that this cause, before monetizing nonmarket norms that are worth caring about. Sandel does not disapprove of corruption tactics to achieve important goals, however he states that we must be clear about what type of corruption we are engaged in. Furthermore, when questioning morals in economic markets, we have to reconcile the end we hope to achieve.
Examples of fines and fees and reasons for failure:
- Carbon tax (fine) for polluters (institutions and countries).
- Traffic ticket: The goal is to promote public safety.
- Late pick up daycare fine: the goal is to provide care for children.
How can the Failure be Explained? edit
Sandel states that the effects of a fine or a fee, when used as an incentive to promote norms, cannot be predicted with certainty - it is case by case. Therefore for fines, we should try to strengthen the moral stigma, and the attitudes that support the wrongful act, to discourage the behaviour. (If the fine is too low, the offense may be viewed as a fee) In addition, he notes that fines that share a collective responsibility have a higher success rate, since the pressure from groups, may force people to change their behavior.
Checklist - Questions to ask when evaluating a failure:
| Questions | Fine | Fee |
|---|---|---|
| Is the good a public good? (care for children, public safety, environment) | ||
| purpose of Social Institution? | ||
| What social norms should govern it? | ||
| What is the cost benefit incentive scheme (carbon tax) | ||
| Is there a policy and what norms govern it? | ||
| Is the offender wealthy? | ||
| Was the cost high enough to enhance the virtue and cover the damage? | ||
| Was the fine an individual responsibility or collective? |
Sandel's Market Limitations - Moral Assessment edit
The market mechanism of supply and demand may erode the norms by encouraging people to corrupt the important attitudes about the environment, late arrivals or speeding. Therefore, it is important to do a moral assessment. The questions in the checklist above, will cover this assessment. (Is the incentive an individual or collective penalty? What social norms do you want to govern the incentive?) This will inform if the price (fine) of the penalty is appropriate. Furthermore, Sandel states that corruption in markets that are related to social practices, must be clear to evaluate what norms are being compromised, this will inform new norms or substitutions. When affluent people or countries engage in unfair practice, the notion of inequality is raised, An unfair practice is defined as a condition of access and market ability to pay. [2] For Sandel, the fundamental problem is that matters of civic duty, do not belong in the market. Therefore, the failure can be explained through the use of a price system. It fails to defuse the problem because it does not considers ownership of public goods versus private gains. [3]
Theoretical Applications - Virtue Ethics edit
Moral philosophy and ethics will help communities identify where markets erode nonmarket norms and if the loss of the norm(s) are worth caring about. Virtue Ethics is an important theory the decisions of individuals. Agent-based ethics may help societies identify individual motivations that stem from the qualities of agent (people), where right and wrong acts are aligned with good motives that are connected to the values that they want to be like. [4] In addition, through the examination of moral ethics; utilitarianism, societies may define the supreme good that they hope to achieve. [5] Since Sandel discusses individual and collective responsibility in great lengths, the morals that involve individual responsibility and groups may prove useful to assess perverse fines. [4]Furthermore, deontological ethics morally survey's problems by observing choices or intent, by the state of affairs that may arise. This may aid to fulfill a collective good. Objections to virtue ethics, by Emmanuel Kant, state that virtues cannot provide an adequate determinant of right actions, based on a natural truth. [6] Further criticisms assert that by only looking at consequences to justify any act, (regardless of the harm it may cause), is no realm of moral duty. [7]
Additional Theoretical Concepts to Consider edit
- Libertarianism - this may aid in implementing higher environmental fines to justify strong protections for people.
- Civic Education - this may aid in developing a bottom- up approach to civic engagement, to develop personal self, civic obligation and responsibility of what constitutes a good citizen are raised. [8] and enhance penalties for immoral behaviour. Classical liberalism assert that government and citizenship defined a strong and just civil state comprised of virtuous citizenship. [9]
- Social Norms - Since the study of social norms is diverse, depending on the school of thought that aims to study its influence, such as cultures in different countries, may be important of to motivate people into action. [10]
- Dynamic Choice - for complex issues with many intersections, a series of choices, (that do not address a problem well), may be helpful when implementing incentive schemes. [11]
Case Exhibits edit
Failed Carbon Tax Program edit
The failure of British Columbia's carbon tax program, could be explained as the cost benefit scheme was not appropriate. For matters that are complex, a dynamic choice incentive model, may beneficial to sett up multiple incentive options. In this case, the virtues of the environment, as public good for the province, may not have been strong in policies that were aligned to making polluter pay for the damage that they caused. Therefore, the province would benefit from assessing the norms that govern the goods and goal. The alignment to a strong stigma, such as blacklisted from business opportunities, may help. The province would also require a cost benefit assessment to identify if the incentive scheme is too high, since the untaxed emissions in British Columbia, exceeded previous years. [5]
Daycare Late Pick Up Fine edit
The failure of the late perverse effect of the daycare fines incentive, could be identified as parents treating the fine as a fee. This could be the result of some parents attitudes that the fees were industry standard and reasonable. However, an assessment of the moral understanding of lateness could have also caused the crowding out of wrong doing. Therefore, an assessment of the social norms that the daycare aims to achieve, would be valuable to inform the parents. In addition, an assessment of the policy may be valuable to attache a withdrawal consideration for repeat offenders. Furthermore, since the fines are priced individually, the center may benefit from a collective responsibility incentive. As parents may feel shame for their behavior, which may garner more disciplined behavior and register a moral judgement from others.[6]
Fines for Speeding edit
Identifying this failure had many layers because it is a public good and effects many people, with diverse level of harm. Therefore, the dynamic structure of attaching fines to demerit points may have proved effective for the affluent offender in this case, Sean. Sean did not express concerns with the price of the fine, rather, he expressed his concern, for the policy of 4 demerit points. Since this is aligned with the punishment, the impact that this incentive had may have been successful, since the violation would have impacted his driving record and insurance fees. [7] When we analyse another case, both offenders expressed a fear and embarrassment for their actions, however, Judith was a repeat offender. She describes the second ticket as a problem, that has created many challenges for her because she cannot afford the cost of the ticket due to medical expenses. [8] Although the offense seemed to be effective, further discussions regarding the criminalization of poverty may be useful to investigate, when inequality is identified by the offender. [9]
Preliminary Conclusions edit
The failure of traffic fees and fines as an act of discipline is complex. Therefore, assessing matters of affluence and inequality may identify other ways to align supply and demand pricing, to goals that enhance public safety. This may be important for repeat offenders. However, by penalizing people further with added fees, matters of inequality are raised. Since Sandel thinks inequality is an important virtue, assessing the price mechanism is improve to enhance payment rates. From a philosophical perspective, the ideas of ethics and morals related to policies, civic education, and cost benefit schemes, are an important contributors to the failure of incentives. Since systems reflect policies, the social norms of people will be ineffective if the missions of policies are not aligned appropriately, therefore a collective responsibility or bottom-up approach that includes all stakeholders, may me more effective and alleviate future harm to others. [10] This may be facilitated through better outreach strategies and campaigns. [12] [11] Where markets erode nonmarket norms, Sandel's checklist is a valuable way to assess the moral integrity of a fine or fee. [12]
Criticisms edit
Further readings edit
- Culpability blame - responsible wrong doing. This may improve the cost benefit schemes of morals institutions and policies.
- Big business: X Copper - How to fight a traffic ticket. Traffic fines have expanded into new markets.
- Book: Reading - "Attack your ticket: A Practical Guide to Canadian Parking Infractions." - Mark A.J. McDonnell & Mitchell Worsoff.
- Brennan and Jaworski criticize the "walling-off" of certain goods and services from markets for money. They argue that bad effects of markets in contested commodities can be eliminated through appropriate regulations. [13]
References edit
- ^ Gert, Bernard; Gert, Joshua (2017), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "The Definition of Morality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-04-02
- ^ "Corruption", Wikipedia, 2020-03-27, retrieved 2020-04-02
- ^ Hursthouse, Rosalind; Pettigrove, Glen (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Virtue Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-04-02
- ^ Hursthouse, Rosalind; Pettigrove, Glen (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Virtue Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-30
- ^ Hursthouse, Rosalind; Pettigrove, Glen (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Virtue Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-21
- ^ Hursthouse, Rosalind; Pettigrove, Glen (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Virtue Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-21
- ^ Alexander, Larry; Moore, Michael (2016), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Deontological Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-21
- ^ Crittenden, Jack; Levine, Peter (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Civic Education", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-21
- ^ Crittenden, Jack; Levine, Peter (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Civic Education", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-22
- ^ Bicchieri, Ryan, Cristina, Muldoon; Sontuoso, Alessandro (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Social Norms", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-22
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Andreou, Chrisoula (2017), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Dynamic Choice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-03-22
- ^ "Our Mission". Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Retrieved 2020-04-02.
- ^ Brennan, Jason; Jaworski, Peter Martin (2015-07). "Markets without Symbolic Limits". Ethics. 125 (4): 1053–1077. doi:10.1086/680907. ISSN 0014-1704.
{{cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)