tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7258903829242617268.post4320485543879283218..comments2023-09-20T04:36:43.331-04:00Comments on Rollie's Blog: Public Matters: UniversalRollie Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12823235385877021567noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7258903829242617268.post-30752981747987392422012-04-08T18:24:40.720-04:002012-04-08T18:24:40.720-04:00great comment and advice. I will keep narrowing. ...great comment and advice. I will keep narrowing. but cannot separate the economic (market life and self-interest) from the cultural (values in our denominational and civil religion) and politics (collective speech and action). Critical inquiry like Sandel (and Rawls and Sen) are doing is necessary but not sufficient. Action through organizing like you are doing is what will make our common future.Rollie Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12823235385877021567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7258903829242617268.post-75098876278637526312012-03-18T12:15:21.005-04:002012-03-18T12:15:21.005-04:00I think you are definitely on the right track Roll...I think you are definitely on the right track Rollie - as always - but perhaps 'universal' is too big of an ethical-moral context to conquer.<br /><br />How about narrowing to some key polarities as a frame we Westerners (and now others across the globe) can relate to and are grappling with? - as Harvard's Michael Sandel does in this month's The Atlantic - in digging into the moral and ethical implications of the differences between a 'Market Economy' and a 'Market Society' <br /><br /><br />Excerpt from the Sandel article in the April 2012 - The Atlantic:<br /><br />"These examples illustrate a broader point: some of the good things in life are degraded if turned into commodities. So to decide where the market belongs, and where it should be kept at a distance, we have to decide how to value the goods in question—health, education, family life, nature, art, civic duties, and so on. These are moral and political questions, not merely economic ones. To resolve them, we have to debate, case by case, the moral meaning of these goods, and the proper way of valuing them. <br /><br />This is a debate we didn’t have during the era of market triumphalism. As a result, without quite realizing it—without ever deciding to do so—we drifted from having a market economy to being a market society. <br /><br />The difference is this: A market economy is a tool—a valuable and effective tool—for organizing productive activity. A market society is a way of life in which market values seep into every aspect of human endeavor. It’s a place where social relations are made over in the image of the market. <br /><br />The great missing debate in contemporary politics is about the role and reach of markets. Do we want a market economy, or a market society? What role should markets play in public life and personal relations? How can we decide which goods should be bought and sold, and which should be governed by nonmarket values? Where should money’s writ not run? <br /><br />Even if you agree that we need to grapple with big questions about the morality of markets, you might doubt that our public discourse is up to the task. It’s a legitimate worry. At a time when political argument consists mainly of shouting matches on cable television, partisan vitriol on talk radio, and ideological food fights on the floor of Congress, it’s hard to imagine a reasoned public debate about such controversial moral questions as the right way to value procreation, children, education, health, the environment, citizenship, and other goods. I believe such a debate is possible, but only if we are willing to broaden the terms of our public discourse and grapple more explicitly with competing notions of the good life." <br /><br />Really glad you are on the case Rollie. regards, keith in Fresnokeith in Fresnonoreply@blogger.com