Morality is an idea that has been long forgotten in our society. As generations come and go, so do the general ideas of what is right and wrong. Actions that would have once been seen as morally wrong are now clouded over by the biggest player in today’s society, the market. The market system has defaced morality in almost every aspect. Whether it has to do with someone buying their way up a transplant list for a kidney or betting on what celebrity will die first on a popular website, morality has been put on the back burner. Of all the facets of life where market has taken over morality, insurance is a prominent one. In Michael Sandel’s “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets”, Sandel speaks of the reality behind a specific type of insurance, janitor’s insurance, and the price it puts on a human’s life. Sandel questions the distastefulness of janitor’s insurance by focusing on the role that the …show more content…
In many of these cases, the employee himself has no idea that this insurance has been taken out on him because the company is not always forced to notify their employees. (Sandel 133) In Michael Sandel’s book, he talks about the true story of a man named Michael Rice who unknowingly battled with janitor’s insurance. Rice worked as an assistant manager at Walmart and ended up having a heart attack on the job. Due to his sudden death, a life insurance policy of $300,000 was paid out to Walmart, while his family, his wife and two children, received nothing. (Sandel 131) The idea that Michael Rice’s family, like many other families across the globe, received no compensation for his death represents the bad taste that Sandel describes comes along with janitor’s insurance. It seems very redundant for a superpower like Walmart to receive such a great amount of money on such a minimal job.
John Stapleford’s book, Bulls, Bears, and Golden Calves, provides a thorough overview with a Christian perspective of economic and ethical analysis. He reviews the moral challenges of macro, micro, and international economic issues. Stapleford covers a variety of important public policy issues such as self-interest, economic efficiency, and private property rights. He begins the book by laying a foundation of ethical thought and an analytical framework. Stapleford provides a Biblical perspective on the practical issues facing our current society. For example, there are three billion people in the world who live on less than $2 a day (Stapleford, 2009). The wealthy Americans continue to get richer. The greed and lawlessness of America’s corporate boardrooms is increasing. Legalized gambling continues to increase every year. The expansion of pornography and its accessibility to America’s younger generations has become a rapidly growing epidemic (Stapleford, 2009). This text is grounded solidly in biblical principles. A number of the problems he discusses are not specifically addressed in the Bible, but one of the author's strengths is to develop a Christian rationale for contemporary issues, based on biblical principles. An example of this skill is found in his forceful chapter on "False Hope . . . The Boom in Legalized Gambling" (Stapleford, 2009).
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
Michael Sandel is a distinguished political philosopher and a professor at Harvard University. Sandel is best known for his best known for his critique of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. While he is an acclaimed professor if government, he has also delved deeply into the ethics of biotechnology. At Harvard, Sandel has taught a course called "Ethics, Biotechnology, and the Future of Human Nature" and from 2002 to 2005 he served on the President’s Council on Bioethics (Harvard University Department of Government, 2013). In 2007, Sandel published his book, The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, in which he explains unethical implications biotechnology has and may have in the near future regarding genetic engineering.
Critics of kidney sales argue that impoverished people are more likely to sell their organs than the rich. (Matas, 2004) They claim that the practice of kidney sales is injustice since vulnerable vendors are targeted and that they may suffer from lengthy health problems after the operations which may eventually lead to the loss of jobs. (Bramstedt, 2010)
In, “Kidneys For Sale: Who Disapproves, and Why?”, Stephen Leider and Alvin Roth conducted a study to research the general opinion of kidney sales. Leider and Roth investigated three hypotheses on the disapproval of kidney markets by sending out internet surveys to a representative sample of Americans. They compared four potential kidney markets: living versus deceased donor types and individual versus government purchaser types. The different markets were described through low context questions and the respondents were given a 7-point scale to rate the...
As a previous member of the waiting list, Sally Satel resorted to desperate measures when she considered going to the black market to obtain a kidney that she needed as well as trying a website called matchingdonors.com. She was lucky enough to find a match on the website, but unfortunately he fell through. As far as the black market goes, she thought it was too risky and unsafe even though she was in a life or death situation. This all could have been prevented if more people in our country were to consider themselves organ donors. If the black market isn’t safe for buying movies or getting music illegally, then it is definitely not safe for buying a kidney. This small statement in Satel’s essay provides a shocking emotional appeal to the readers.
It can be the case that we as affluent individuals; consider an act such as donating money as supererogatory rather than of obligation. Singer holds the position that it is not an act of generosity nor beneficence, but of moral obligation. If we fail to do an obliged act, then we are morally wrong. He argues that when we are spending large sums of money on luxuries, we should think of those in impoverishment (Singer 1972, p239)
In her essay Nepharious Goings On: Kidney Sales and Moral Arguments, Richards restates the arguments made in favour of the prohibition of organ sales by live vendors and identifies their flaws. Furthermore, Richards provides other arguments in favour of the prohibition that she claims are more logically sound and should be used instead. In this paper, I will be reconstructing the initial argument in favour of prohibition on the grounds of coercion by unrefusable offers, Richard’s objection to it, and the argument she suggests be used in its place. I will then asses the merit of the latter reformed argument in being used to argue in favour of organ sale prohibition and conclude that this reformed argument is adequately equipped to effectively
In Mackay’s article, “the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates the dignity of the human person”. Most likely, this statement was believed by a healthy individual not in need of a vital organ to save their life. We often think that morals and ethics apply to our daily lives but when fear gets in the way of all of that, what do we stand for? How can we face death with a straight perception if we know a way to keep us from dying? Some might say that it is immoral and that the sales only benefit the rich. Mackay explains how “it only helps the rich but exploits the poorer people of third world countries”. If a person is going to such extreme measure, would it be moral to be done out of the goodness of their heart instead of the reason to gain a certain lump of money? With all of that said, we always hear a saying that “you cant put a price on your life” but in this situation, Mackay clearly proves
...company workers being affected by the financial crisis. We don’t want to point fingers here only assess the ethical dilemmas that these companies face. Subjective human judgment opens up for the possibility of undesirable human biases and manipulation. However, with or without human judgment, financial models of credit risk are subject to manipulation, both legally and fraudulently.
Grudem attempts to answer whether ownership, commercial transactions, and profit are always tainted with evil, or wether they are morally neutral and can be used for good or evil. Grudem argues that these ideas are fundamentally good things that God has bestowed to the human race. However, many people fall into the temptations that lead to misuse and wrongdoing. A large underlying theme in Grudem’s book is that the features of business provide many opportunities for glorifying God. They can, however, also carry many temptations that lead to ungodliness.
As in any other discipline that entails interaction with individuals, the aspect of ethics must include a conscious principle. To define ethics in its simplest form, it is known as the ability to distinguish right from wrong. In the movie, the sudden pressure from management drives the company’s salesmen to increase sales with no regards to ethics in order to maintain job security. All of the main characters had made their fair share of unethical decisions, out of desperation, to increase their sales and ultimately to keep their jobs. The degree of each decision can be left for viewers to determine the level of appropriateness based on their own values. Personally, although all characters have made unethical decisions, the most ethical salesman was Ricky Roma. Ri...
In a paper published in 1988 by the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics addressing the ethical and moral issues in kidney transplant, the paper addressed moral concerns about a possible concern about a potential and highly possible market for human body part. Before long, the paper had its undesired effect. Schulman notes that “Many people sent emails inquiring on how they would donate their kidneys. I would like more information about it and how I could sell one of my kidneys to your university because I really need money.” They had ranging reasons as to why they wished to donate their kidneys. Some wanted to use the
Throughout the piece, Singer highlights that ‘we ought to give money away and it is wrong not to do so.’ This statement is not merely showing that it will be commendable to give money, but failing to give will be morally wrong. This obligatory nature of his argument urges people to donate the money that would otherwise be spent on luxuries. Singer’s profound conclusion has been supported by an analogy: What would you do if you see a small child drowning? There can be little doubt that, despite the inconvenience of getting our clothes muddy and shoes wet, people will attempt to save the child’s life. From this example, Singer builds on to argue that there is no moral difference between letting the child drown and
Money is probably one of the most important things in this world. Without it, life would be very hard. With it, you become economically stable making life would be easier in some ways. But the real question is, can money actually make someone physically and emotionally happy? There are many sides to this debate; some who say yes and others who say no. Though most people agree with the statement, “Money doesn’t buy happiness,” there is still a large amount of people who disagree with it. They believe that money does indeed buy happiness and that it’s the most important thing in the world. There is no right or wrong answer to this question, it’s just a matter of what you believe in and your values.