I agree with the authors’ critique of the market because Ewert and Brooks are coming from different places but are saying the same things in different ways. “The free market, while not touching the heart of a man or eliminating selfishness, does, in fact, restrain selfishness. It channels self-centered desires into actions that are beneficial to others'' as a Christian would do to serve his god righteously.” (Ewert, 1989) A Christian can not serve his god righteously unless his duty is served with the correct morals and values. No one can make you do anything but the want for something makes you do more than you thought you could do. The market opens up that you want for you.
In Brooks’ article, he gives three arguments. “First, we have to argue for the right of every American to earn his or her success.”(Brooks, 2012) Because of the free market and people trying to get more power in the free market we constantly have to fight for the right to get what we want as well as where we want to be in life.
“Second, we have to argue for basic fairness.”(Brooks, 2012) Because some people are more wealthy than others they can use their money as power to get what they want done which makes it harder for the person (who is trying to live justly) who is not so wealthy to get what they want out into the world. Just as Ewert puts it, “They have examined the free market and found it morally wanting. Some of the most common reasons given for this indictment are that the market is based on an ethic of selfishness and it fosters materialism; it atomizes and dehumanizes society by placing too much emphasis on the individual; and it gives rise to tyrannical economic powers which subsequently are used to oppress the weaker and more defenseless members of society.”(Ewert, 1989). The market is selfish and lacks morals because it shows us what we want and we strive for that.
“Third, we have to argue for the rights of the poor, and fight for the system that lifts them up by the billions.”(Brooks, 2012) As a Christian, this is doing what God has asked of us to do. but when you put materialism and the free market into the picture it makes it hard for a person to say “no”. Not because they want to live a better life or be selfish, but because they are constantly seeing what they want. We shouldn’t have to fight for the poor, there is too much money in this world for anyone to be poor. We should be striving to help thy neighbor like God wants us to do, instead of putting one down to get ahead in the economy.
Brooks, A.C. (2012, October 21). Making a Moral Case for Capitalism. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/articles/making-a-moral-case-for-capitalism/
Ewert, K. S. (1989, March 1). Moral Criticisms of the Market: Ken S. Ewert. Retrieved, from https://fee.org/articles/moral-criticisms-of-the-market/
After reading the article Moral Criticisms of the Market by Ken S. Ewert, Ewert argued that the free market was nor moral or immoral. Mr. Ewert discussed several major topics such as selfishness, materialism, impersonalism, and last individualism/economic power. He felt that greed would be a part of the economic world no matter if the market was free or controlled. As he identified and sifted through the differences of both market’s he sees that the free market gives all people the ability to go after their own goals. In any system morality or immorality, money making or not, the people form and control that specific system, based on their need and wants. (“According to critics of the market, mere survival in this competitive economic system requires that we each “look after number one.”-Ewert 1989). Plain and simple Ken Ewert says that the critics are persuaded that the free market is only about mass producing and the want for more to feed their own selfish behavior and altruistic ways. (“Moral failure is not spawned by the environment.” Ewert, 1989) I feel what he means by this is that a person’s environment does not cause them to make poor decisions.
I must agree to disagree with Mr