Posted by Luke in 
Recently I read Perry Marshall and Bryan Todd’s excellent book on Google Adwords. At the end of the book Perry begins talking about seeding micro-businesses in the third world. I thought that’s an interesting concept isn’t it? Then this week I hear George Soros (pictured above) talking about ‘the market’ being amoral. George had no problem ‘breaking’ the Bank of England and seems completely unrepentant about doing so. So looking at Perry Marshall and George Soros you begin to wonder… is business just about return on investment?
The market fallacy
One of the main arguments I have against people saying the market is ‘amoral’ is that there is no such ‘thing’ as the market. It doesn’t exist. The market is a concept and a set of practices carried out by human beings. It’s not a tree, rock, house or boat. It’s a bunch of economic precepts that are based on theories, ideals and perspectives that stem from the human being. It is not something that can ever exist outside the perceptions and actions of human beings. For this reason when people say ‘the market’ you have to realise they are talking about interacting perceptions, ideals and actions taken under certain assumptions. If you think otherwise… you are sadly mistaken.
Now, if the market is controlled by people how can it be amoral? Anything you do as a human should reflect your ethical standpoint and views. Say tomorrow that a disease broke out and killed 98% of the world population and seriously deformed 1.99% on top of that? What would the remaining survivors do? Trade in the ‘market’? I think not. The market would not be a pressing concern would it?
Business and ethics should be embodied
Yes I am an idealist. I made a similar point at work the other day and a colleague laughed at me and told me I was dreaming! I know I am. However, it’s a dream worth having. See, you don’t conduct business ethically … you bring your ethics to work. If I am faced with a choice between my values and my work I should (but don’t always…) choose what I think is right. The two are not diametrically opposed are they? The two are the same. What I am saying can be broken down into a thought train: IF people run the market and people have ethics then we should have an ethical market? Like I said it’s a dream. A pipe dream at that.
The shareholder view of business, “I am in business to make money”
And fair enough too… who isn’t? I am in business to make money… I enjoy making it. All I am saying here is that you can’t take your heart and place it in a little box and play with it when you think it suits you. If you are in business to make money then ask yourself this question… am I in business to sell my soul? The market is not evil. People are evil 
. What’s your goal? Well it’s business, not personal. So you are in business to turn off your conscience, so you can make money? What other areas do you turn your conscience off? What if a stay at home mother thought this way? I am here to raise children not make friends! What if a firefighter thought this way? I am here to put out fires, its not personal. A police officer? Why do you think they have ethical standards branches? Come on!
Why I think business is more than return on investment
Business is about trade. Selling, building, creating and moving things people have a need for. Trade has existed since the very beginning. I have noticed an increasing level of selfishness, greed and various other things manifesting themselves in business circles in the last few years. I believe you can still have a heart and be in business. As Perry Marshall and Bryan Todd say at the end of their adwords book business can be part of making a difference.
The smartest people in the world today are in business. One particular hero of mine is Ricardo Semler. He has taken some of his money and is improving the school system. Bill Gates has a foundation that has seeded over 5 Billion dollars to some of the poorest nations in the world. These people are helping and using what they know to improve things. But that’s not really what I am talking about here is it? I am talking about having a heart while you do business. I am talking about the business that sells vacuums, real estate, ice cream, telephones or whatever and has the basic principles of what is right built into that business process. Frankly, people who can turn off their ethics when they go to work scare me.
So what can we do about it? We can find better ways of doing business. We can trade ethically, compete fairly and build meaningful businesses that help improve society. Yes, I am dreaming and yes I am idealistic but so what? If we don’t take our heart to work then work becomes part of what’s wrong with the world.
Powered by MightyAdsense
Nice writing style. Looking forward to reading more from you.
Chris Moran
[...] Continue Reading [...]
Luke, this is a very thought-provoking article!
You have an excellent view on how markets should be intertwined with ethics. I also see your point about the concept of a “market” is just an abstract model of the real world of people trading and that people have ethics (whether good or bad ethics).
I do think that there are some level of ethics in play with markets. Maybe less in financial markets like Wall Street, but if a place like McDonald’s or WalMart is active in community service, I may lean towards going there to be a customer. A company can use the perception of having good ethics as part of public relations.
Ultimately though, I’d have to agree with Soros that business is amoral. Business is competition, and competition has more Darwinian rules in play rather than moral rules. Is it immoral for the cheetah to eat a gazelle? The analogy might be extreme if we’re talking about people, since people are not animals that eat or be eaten, but I think if we’re talking about business organizations rather than people, this analogy is quite close to reality.
When it comes to the business organization, morality may not be as relevant as much as ROI. However, when it comes to individuals who are customers/consumers in the markets, morality is more relevant. To me, the line of demarcation of moral/amoral seems to be whether it’s an organization or if it’s an individual.
Thanks Chris!
Al,
Very good points. That line of demarcation is extremely blurry at times and yes where people stop and start is interesting.
Thanks for you comment.
Luke
Hi Luke
Very interesting article. It got me thinking….
I’d like to think that business only exists because of people so a business can only be as moral as the people controlling the business. Without ROI the business would cease to exist so this is also important. Also, morals are subjective so we’ll never be in agreement over what is morally right or wrong, but I don’t feel businesses are amoral and actually have a obligation to acte ethically where possible.
In love, light and abundance x x x
You know what, Luke, you have a point!
Okay, I think you’re wrong on most of the specifics, but you still reach the right conclusions, which is quite a feat…
The Market exists in the same sense that you exist. You are not your body parts, your mind, your soul, your thoughts and ways of thinking. You are less than this, and more. You are less to the extent that your inherent contradictions are (temporarily and contingently) resolved by the abstractive (selective) processes of belief and decision. You are more to the extent that you are a more or less coherent and directed projection of a mess of irrelevance and contradiction; you can be reasoned about with some success.
The most common systems of ethics take the view that you are not responsible for your desires and beliefs, but for your decisions and actions. It is in this sense that the Market is amoral. However ethical or otherwise the actions of individuals “in the Market” may be (analogous to your internal beliefs, desires etc), the Market will, inevitably and, to some extent, predictably, “make sense” of all available information and react accordingly (analogous to your decisions, actions etc). There is no equivalent to your (real or illusory) free will.
I think Soros might go a bit further than this. If you reason, for example, that house prices in a given area are likely to fall in the short term, which is a Market prediction, then that is a factor in your personal (and hence, to some extent, ethical) decision about how much to pay for a particular house in that area. All else being equal, you will be inclined to pay less. This inclination is both rational and amoral. But to what extent do you feel personally responsible for any shortfall experienced by the sellers as a result? On the one hand, it’s not your fault that the Market is falling, but on the other hand you are a direct cause of the Market prediction coming true…
Hi Alan,
I love it when people disagree with me and then highlight what they think I got right in the manner you have above…
I think your logic here is precisely (at least towards the end) what I am arguing for here. I have to say however, that in the same sense as the buyer is responsible for the shortfall, the seller is responsible as well. The both participate willingly and unwillingly in both the simultaneous creation of market and it’s deconstruction. Why? That’s a question I don’t have the mental capacity to answer.
Take for example the desire to buy a house. We spend our lives working for it, we dedicate the best part of existence to this. Why? The “market” appears to have so much relevance to us that we forgo our working lives in support of it. It influences every single transaction of our lives so much so, that we sell our souls over the length of a life time for it. The question I can’t get out of my head is this: how did it get to be this way? Not that I am advocating the absence of a market. But just asking why…
Great comments Alan, thanks!
Luke
Sorry, Luke, that’s too BIG a question! Or, rather, my multi-faceted response would take too long… The ultimate (?) driver, I would say, is biological. We are viscerally territorial for evolutionary reasons. But what stops us transcending our instinctual isolationism? Examples of communes and extended family households exist, but we find them abhorrent or excessively problematical. And now even the “nuclear” family is increasingly fragmentary…
In the end, it is a natural tendency developed to an unnatural degree. Technology and affluence enable individuals to sustain isolationism by offering a variety of virtual and surrogate social and commercial interactions, in place of genuine and necessary collaborations.
Hi Alan!
I agree it would take too long. The blogging space limits your thought capacity somewhat. What a fantastic point you make in the last paragraph (in both actually)… I have noticed that too. I sat down to write a paper about it a while ago and hit the wall at that point. I agree I think it is a natural tendency. I especially take your final point about surrogate social relationships. That’s a wall breaker!
[...] symbols we hold to in our mind are confirmed by the actions we take (so the author said). So if we have a certain perception of business for example, our actions should reflect this inner [...]