What_Isn't_for_Sale

Running head: Interpretation of Michael Sandel’s: “What isn’t for Sale'” Interpretation of Michael Sandel’s: “What isn’t for Sale'” Ruben Pinedo University of Texas at El Paso Interpretation of Michael Sandel’s: “What isn’t for Sale'” Michael Sandel, a professor at Harvard University, has gathered rather unusual arguments to suggest that some values in this world are just simply priceless and should not be converted into commodities. Such references include prisoners in California paying to upgrade their cell for ninety dollars per day, Indian surrogate mothers for American couples being paid one-third the price of American surrogate mothers, the rights to pollute the atmosphere with carbon monoxide emissions, selling a person’s body for advertising to make extra money for the family, and the list goes on. Sandel isn’t boasting about the rewards from these outrageous market-economy examples but rather bringing to the forefront the question if we as a society have gone too far' The articles states, “In hopes of avoiding sectarian strife, we often insist that citizens leave their moral and spiritual convictions behind when they enter the public square. But the reluctance to admit arguments about the good life into politics has had an unanticipated consequence. It has helped prepare the way for market triumphalism, and for the continuing hold of market reasoning.” (Sandel, 2012) What he means by this is that society treats a lot of things as goods that can be bought and sold. He goes on to say, “This nonjudgmental stance toward values lies at the heart of market reasoning, and explains much of its appeal. But our reluctance to engage in moral and spiritual argument, together with our embrace of markets, has exacted a heavy price: it has drained public discourse of moral and civic energy, and contributed to the technocratic, managerial politics afflicting many societies today.” (Sandel, 2012) He is suggesting this movement towards market-values is hindering the traditional societal-values that were instilled in the past. Life has taught humans that everything is for sale and to think that it isn’t is just ridiculous. It’s beneficial for humans as a whole, even individuals to partake in the market-values and have them benefit as a whole rather than just benefitting the other party. This view of collectivism is the future for society. Using the examples in the article, Sandel talks about prison inmates in California paying to receive better cell accommodations; it is beneficial to the state of California to accommodate the well behaved prisoner after paying as opposed to the same inmate paying the guards or other inmates off for preferential treatment. Referring to the hunting of the black rhino in South Africa, many citizens in Texas have granted access to hunters on their land for a long time already in return for a small price. Not many know the hard work and dedication it takes to maintain the land as well as the investment of money that goes into it. Barely making ends meet by raising livestock and/or crops is a lifetime lifestyle that, more than likely, is inherited through lineage. It finally occurred to the ranchers that bringing in exotic animals from all over the world would provide another profit source for the ranch. Seeing as how exotic animals do not fall under the laws of protection for local species, designed to maintain the local wildlife population, having more variety of animals for game opened a new market to hunters. Since this has been going on for a long time, as previously stated, the population of the foreign animals became higher than that of the local species in Texas. In select parts of the globe, where poaching and lack of control of the game in the country has annihilated many species, raising the same species in Texas and having them taken and reintroduced to their natural habitat to help re-populate the endangered species. It is ultimately a plus that the hunters pay for the right to hunt, in return they would be providing the funds necessary to maintain the wildlife rather than poaching ("The History of Exotic Game in the U.S", n.d.). As time continues, financial inequality is becoming less and less a factor in the world. Being a citizen of foreign nations, as well as the United States, and putting aside the drug and alcoholics that reside within the aforementioned borders, the whole population have somewhere to live, have food to feed themselves, healthcare pensions and adequate educational opportunities. Looking at it from the wealthy point of view, sure they can afford multiple houses and expensive clothing but the access to the minimum of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If you compare today’s population to that of the population from one-hundred years ago, there was starvation running rampant in society. Financial inequality is now not as important because we have much greater consumption equality. Sandel believes in the government rather than the markets. Our founding fathers established this country on the belief that everyone has the same opportunities and that every person is in charge of taking the reins for their own life. Everything in this world has a price tag on it, just how much is one willing to sell it for is the question. ReferencesThe History of Exotic Game in the U.S. (n.d.). Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://www.allaboutexotics.com/all-about-aae/history-of-exotics/Reisz, M. (n.d.). Social mobility no easier in England's modern meritocracy than in medieval oligarchy. Retrieved May 21, 2013, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/415716.articleSandel, M. (2012, February 27). What Isn't for Sale. The Atlantic [Boston]. |