Why letting the market decide what is valuable is a terrible idea
Meritocratic ethics tend to equate the value of a worker's contribution with the value that contribution has in the market. This implies that the more the market demands the goods or services a worker produces, the more intrinsic value is attributed to that contribution.
But is it really the case that what the market values at a given moment is what confers moral value to a worker's contribution?
Should we consider that a person who generates substantial amounts of money and significantly contributes to a country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) automatically contributes the most to the common good?
In my view, the moral value of someone's contribution is not equivalent to the market value of that contribution.
Market value VS moral value
Let's take the example presented by philosopher Michael Sandel in his work The Tyranny of Merit: the protagonist of the series "Breaking Bad."
This character, a chemistry teacher, engages in the illegal production of methamphetamine. If we look solely from the market perspective, it might seem that his contribution is valuable due to the high demand for this substance.
However, it is difficult to support the claim that a chemistry teacher's contribution has the same moral value and social significance as the production and sale of methamphetamine.
This example clearly illustrates that the question of the common good and the good life cannot be reduced to a purely economic discussion.
Allowing the market to determine what is valuable can lead us down ethically questionable paths.
Is it really fair for a teacher who earns more by producing and selling methamphetamine to be considered more valuable than one who teaches chemistry in a school?
Market should be guided by ethics
Michael Sandel suggests that we need to restore the dignity of work as an ethical ideal. To restore the dignity of work, we must rebuild the community ties that have been destroyed in the era of merit.
This involves a paradigm shift regarding work, especially for those in lower-paid jobs, which would result in better economic compensation and greater social esteem for individuals and their contributions.
In summary, relying on the market as the sole arbiter of what is valuable is a problematic idea that fails to consider the complexity of the ethical and moral issues surrounding individuals' contributions to society. The economy cannot be the sole determinant of a person's value and their work in the community.
