What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets

“Buy the life insurance policy of an ailing or elderly person, pay the annual premiums while the person is alive, and then collect the death benefit when he or she dies: potentially, millions (depending on the policy). This form of betting on the lives of strangers has become a $30 billion industry. The sooner the stranger dies, the more the investor makes.”

Sandel represents the death of a stranger as a potential money-making enterprise through life insurance schemes. His implicit condemnation of the practice is clear; he questions why a human life could be reduced to an investment, speaking to The Immorality of Over-Commodification.

“Over the past three decades, markets—and market values—have come to govern our lives as never before.”

Sandel critiques the celebration of market values, as well as the assumption that markets are inherently moral and fair. He emphasizes that the infiltration of market values into every aspect of life is not inevitable, but could (and should) be challenged through discourse and debate, reflecting his belief in The Importance of Debate on Market Values.

“[T]his need for discretion suggests that paid line cutting—even in an amusement park—tugs against a nagging sense that fairness means waiting your turn.”

If market values were universally and inherently fair, there would be no need for the development of separate and hidden entrances to rides in amusement parks, which offer a higher priced ticket for skipping lines. The existence of these entrances, not visible to the rest of the public, suggests an inherent unfairness, which the scheme developers recognize. This supports Sandel’s assertions that the infiltration of market values has a disproportionate impact on those who can’t afford to pay premium prices, invoking the links between Free-Market Values and Social Inequality.

“Of course, it might be argued that if the environmentalists cared enough about attending the hearing, they too could have queued up overnight. Or they could have hired homeless people to do it for them.”

Sandel’s tongue-in-cheek tone mocks the idea that paying line-standers to reserve the floor of Congress to exclude political enemies is a moral practice in a democratic system. Therefore, on a broader level, Sandel seeks to disprove the assumption the market is inherently righteous in terms of its distribution of goods to those who can afford the highest price.

“The proliferation of fast-track schemes adds to the advantages of affluence and consigns the poor to the back of the line.”

Sandel explores Free-Market Values and Social Inequality by stressing the widening gap between rich and poor, which is created by a world increasingly ruled by market values. Lines, which ensure equality by distributing goods and services to those who are willing to wait, are being replaced by markets, which allocate resources to those with money. The advantages of being rich are increasing through these schemes, while the hardships of poverty are accentuated.

“Dr. Tang. Dr. Tang. Who wants a ticket for Dr. Tang? Rheumatology and immunology.”

Sandel discusses the practices of ticket scalpers for medical services in Beijing to highlight parallels to the American system, which he suggests is merely a more subtle version of the same principle, whereby those with money can skip the line and receive more timely medical attention, reinforcing Free-Market Values and Social Inequality.

“Concierge care for a few depends on shunting everyone else onto the crowded rolls of other doctors.”

Sandel unpacks the implications of a limited, expensive, pay-for-use medical system by considering the exclusion of less-wealthy patients. Sandel implies that this exclusion may have real consequences on the health of less-wealthy individuals, reflecting the exacerbation of Free-Market Values and Social Inequality.

“Ticket scalping is one example of how markets reach efficient outcomes […] By charging the highest price the market will bear, scalpers help ensure that consumers with the greatest willingness to pay for the tickets actually do get them.”

Sandel here quotes his colleague, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw (See: Key Figures). Mankiw is a proponent of the inherent fairness present in free-market economies. He believes that ticket scalping, where individuals buy and resell tickets to the highest bidder, ensures fairness through allocating the ticket to the person who wants it the most.

“Willingness to pay for a good does not show who values it most highly. This is because market prices reflect the ability as well as the willingness to pay.”

Elaborating on his key theme, Free-Market Values and Social Inequality, Sandel points out that individuals are not coming from an even playing field when opportunities have a cost: He suggests that markets replacing lines favors the rich and disadvantages the poor.

“Their ability to afford seats behind home plate may have more to do with the depth of their pockets than their passion for the game.”

Sandel continues to object to the tenet that markets distribute goods fairly through his discussion of expensive baseball game tickets. He argues that the individuals sitting in prime positions are more likely to be wealthy than avid baseball fans. This refers again to his theme, Free-Market Values and Social Inequality.

“The tendency of markets to displace queues, and other nonmarket ways of allocating goods, so pervades modern life that we scarcely notice it anymore.”

Sandel is concerned with the infiltration of market values into many walks of life. Sandel urges his readers to become more aware of market values, and to question whether their existence in a certain setting is appropriate and desirous. This connects to his theme The Importance of Debate on Market Values.

“From the standpoint of market reasoning, it’s not clear why the program should provoke outrage.”

Sandel argues that Barbara Harris’s (See: Key Figures) Cash for Sterilization problem is morally problematic, as it encourages addicted women to give up their reproductive rights while under significant socioeconomic pressures. Sandel points out that pure market reasoning is flawed in considering such complex moral issues.

“One measure of this transformation is the growing use of monetary incentives to solve social problems.”

The Immorality of Over-Commodification is referred to in the attempts to solve social problems, such as the health crisis or school children from low socio-economic areas underperforming, through incentives. Sandel suggests that this is not an effective approach.

“Good health is not only about achieving the right cholesterol level and body mass index. It is also about developing the right attitude to our physical well-being and treating our bodies with care and respect. Paying people to take their meds does little to develop such attitudes and may even undermine them.”

Sandel explores the “crowding out effect” of introducing incentives or payment in terms of undercutting and eliminating intrinsic motivation. He invokes The Immorality of Over-Commodification while describing the impact of paying people to care for themselves, as this undermines people’s intrinsic motivation to be healthy and makes long-term habits harder to form.

“Environmental taxes, emissions trading schemes, and carbon taxes constitute an outsourcing of an obligation.”

Sandel suggests that allowing individuals, corporations, and companies to pay to offset their environmental damage sidesteps collective responsibilities toward caring for the environment. The Immorality of Over-Commodification is referred to here: Sandel suggests that there are some things, like environmental damage, that the wealthy should not be able to buy their way out of.

“We should try to strengthen, not weaken, the moral stigma attached to despoiling the environment. I also worried that, if rich countries could buy their way out of the duty to reduce their own emissions, we would undermine the sense of shared sacrifice necessary to future global cooperation on the environment.”

Sandel continues to suggest that increased market values and market value-based reasoning, such as emissions trading schemes, favor the rich. He believes that paying to negate environmental damage misses the civic sacrifice needed to change the culture around damaging the environment.

“For the Inuit to sell outsiders the right to kill their allotted walruses corrupts the meaning and purpose of the exemption accorded their community in the first place. It’s one thing to honor the Inuit way of life and to respect its long-standing reliance on subsistence walrus hunting. It’s quite another to convert that privilege into a cash concession in killing on the side.”

Sandel asserts that the Inuit exemption around walrus-killing is demeaned when this practice is commercialized and sold off to hunters. Sandel continues to suggest that when market values infiltrate into nonmarket spheres, The Immorality of Over-Commodification become apparent.

“The fairness objection says that admitting children of wealthy donors in exchange for a handsome donation to the college fund is unfair to applicants who lacked the good judgment to be born to affluent parents. This objection views a college education as a source of opportunity and access, and worries that giving an edge to children of the wealthy perpetuates social and economic inequality.”

Sandel discusses the issue of Free-Market Values and Social Inequality in his critique of students buying their way into expensive institutions. Through referring to the “lack of good judgment” of children not born to rich families, Sandel, through paralipsis, reminds readers that children have no say in the wealth that they are born into, and that therefore this should not be a factor.

“Commercialization and profit in blood has been driving out the voluntary donor.”

Once people begin to view blood as a commodity that is routinely bought and sold, a study by Titmuss suggests, they are less likely to feel a moral responsibility to donate it. This is an illustration of the “crowding out” principle, whereby market values crowd out altruistic motivations. Sandel continues to stress that market values affect the spheres they touch, changing the fundamental nature of the good or service.

“Altruism, generosity, solidarity, and civic spirit are not like commodities that are depleted with use. They are more like muscles that develop and grow stronger with exercise. One of the defects of a market-driven society is that it lets these virtues languish. To renew our public life we need to exercise them more strenuously.”

Sandel challenges the market value-based assumption that systems should not rely on individuals’ altruism, as this is an expendable resource. This is using economic modeling to predict a non-economic concept, which Sandel believes is inappropriate and inaccurate. Instead, Sandel suggests that civic values will proliferate if relied upon, and languish if not utilized.

“A twenty-nine-year-old man who died of AIDS in 1992, yielding a $339,000 death benefit for the company that owned the music store where he had worked briefly. His family received nothing.”

Sandel continues to emphasize the way in which market values benefit the rich and hurt the poor. This is epitomized in janitor’s insurance, which benefits corporations over bereaved families in need, heightening the cycle of Free-Market Values and Social Inequality.

“Creating conditions where workers are worth more dead than alive objectifies them; it treats them as commodity futures rather than employees whose value to the company lies in the work they do. What was once a source of security for families now becomes a tax break for corporations.”

The Immorality of Over-Commodification appears in Sandel’s critique of the dehumanizing nature of janitor’s insurance. He continues to suggest that market values have infiltrated into spheres of life in inappropriate ways, such as in profits being derived from individuals’ deaths.

“The rise of memorabilia markets, naming rights, and skyboxes in recent decades reflects our market-driven society.”

Sandel emphasizes the way that market values have crept into so many aspects of life, especially sport, where the experience has been changed completely by exclusive skyboxes and the market for memorabilia. Furthermore, the commercial rebranding of stadiums and other public sites illustrates the proliferation of market values. Sandel urges his readers to become aware of these immense changes, and to question them rather than to passively accept this societal shift toward total commercialization. Through this, Sandel continues to stress The Importance of Debate on Market Values.