Three Principles of Ethical Economics
As I prepared for my recent 'Discipleship Economics' workshop I tried to strain some foundational principles out of my swirl of thoughts about personal economics grounded in personal values. So far I have come up with Three Principles of Personal Economics that I hope you'll find as valuable as I have. They are all based on what I call the Transcendent Virtue: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
1) Simplicity - Free your time, commitment, and money by limiting your personal needs and meeting them with a minimum of resources. If we ought to care for our neighbors as we do ourselves, it stands to reason that our personal economics must leave room for our neighbors. This begins with limiting how much of our resources are devoted to our own needs.
2) Generosity - Simplicity without generosity is only stinginess or laziness. If a need can be filled by giving your Time or your Commitment, that is probably the best way. Give money as an act of relationship, not in lieu of it. Money is best given within established, ongoing relationships. Generosity should be proactive: Set aside time, commitment, and money; seek out great ways to use them. The results might amaze you.
3) Ethicality - Even as you simplify your lifestyle you will continue to buy things. Many products are made using substandard ethical or environmental practices. Make a serious effort to buy only the most ethically and environmentally sound products. Remember, your neighbor is anyone that you have the opportunity to care for, and each time you make a purchase, you have the opportunity to care for the people behind your product.
(The difficulty in finding this information is why my friends and I are building WikiChoice, a web service that will give you instant access to the best consumer choices. Follow us on Twitter here.)
1) Simplicity - Free your time, commitment, and money by limiting your personal needs and meeting them with a minimum of resources. If we ought to care for our neighbors as we do ourselves, it stands to reason that our personal economics must leave room for our neighbors. This begins with limiting how much of our resources are devoted to our own needs.
2) Generosity - Simplicity without generosity is only stinginess or laziness. If a need can be filled by giving your Time or your Commitment, that is probably the best way. Give money as an act of relationship, not in lieu of it. Money is best given within established, ongoing relationships. Generosity should be proactive: Set aside time, commitment, and money; seek out great ways to use them. The results might amaze you.
3) Ethicality - Even as you simplify your lifestyle you will continue to buy things. Many products are made using substandard ethical or environmental practices. Make a serious effort to buy only the most ethically and environmentally sound products. Remember, your neighbor is anyone that you have the opportunity to care for, and each time you make a purchase, you have the opportunity to care for the people behind your product.
(The difficulty in finding this information is why my friends and I are building WikiChoice, a web service that will give you instant access to the best consumer choices. Follow us on Twitter here.)
Labels: Economics, Simplicity, The Idea Camp, wikichoice
posted by James at 23:14
.jpg)
8 Comments:
very much agree. you would love ethical discussions like this at my uni.
Woah woah woah..you mean "love thy neighbor" should extend to ALL principles of life, maybe even economics? Mot JUST being nice to the person next door? You're good you....you're GOOD. :)
Hey buddy,
I like your ideas, as always, but they are significant consequences and social and political pressures that they must address. I'll only mention one and save the rest for when we can finally talk (been too long my friend). So, one major effect of the simplicity proposition is that a reduction in consumption practices (even if it only a reduction on luxuries) will of course result in a contraction of the economy and a loss of jobs. It is taking money out of circulation. The money we spend on all those frivolous non-necessities do employ people and provide them much needed material necessities. In addition, these people have an effect on all of us insofar as they consume the things we produce. So, we are left with a bit of a moral dilemma: reducing consumption to free up time to invest our energies and charitable givings to our neighbors might just put our neighbors out of business. I like where you are going with this, and I am interested in going in a similar direction, but this simplicity thing does not seem so simple. We need to think this, among other moral problems associated with these ideas, out.
In reply to Bryan:
I don't think he's suggesting that we spend less in order to stockpile more (which would take money out of circulation), but rather that we should spend our money differently (generosity not stinginess). I'll readily agree that this redirection of funds will still put some people out of a job. However, since it's a redirection of flow and not simply stopping the flow, it should create more jobs elsewhere. I find it hard to believe that we need to spend frivolously in order to support our neighbor (I actually strongly disagree with that on a practical, ethical, and spiritual level).
hey somehow stumbled upon this blog. Love your ideas. Keep talking/writing! Is it okay to repost some of this elsewhere?!? :-)
Thanks for the discussion friends! (I'm going to try to use some html tags - forgive me if it comes out jumbled.)
Aly, I bet I would! I find this line of thought immensely interesting right now. If you ever have quotes or articles that you find especially good, send them my way!
Ker, ha! I would even go so far as to say especially economics, more so when considered in the broader sense of how we decide to allocate resources such as time and commitment. Hard to love someone without time, commitment or money!
Bryan, I always look forward to your replies, and dread them a little because I know I'll have to kick my brain into high gear. We should get together soon and discuss these, and perhaps more docile things, in person!
I agree that there are ramifications to changes in our economic attitudes and behaviors, and a shift to simplicity would carry consequences. My thoughts on this are not very organized yet, but here's a peak: First, I've continued to consider these principles and I'm thinking of adding one (though not sold yet) - Productivity, a focus on doing work that produces something aligned with your values. Many people hear simplicity and assume that it means less 'productivity.' I'm thinking it should maintain at least as much productivity, if not more, with a shift in the goods and services produced - more social goods and services in the private sector. Second, I agree with Aaron that Generosity means that money is not pulled out of circulation but repurposed for more necessary expenses. Third, I agree that done quickly on a large scale this would be a painful process, but I don't believe we have much to fear about this being quickly on a large scale. Fourth, part of the economic crisis we're in is due to our economy's overindulgence in luxuries. As soon as the economy tightens up, and it always does, there is a huge amount of luxury fat we can cut from our personal budgets, so we decrease our spending by a relatively large percentage, thus causing a further contraction of the economy, etc. The spiral effect we've been seeing. An economy of simple, generous consumers would not have such a problem.
Aaron, I think you'll find above that we have very similar thoughts on this matter :)
Rebecca, Glad that you stumbled by! Feel free to use stuff from this blog, and if you wouldn't mind linking back here that would be great!
Aaron and James,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Aaron. I didn't mean to suggest that simplicity meant stinginess. I simply meant to highlight the real material and moral casualties associated with a redirection of economic resources. I don't think these can be overstated. Some of the poorest and most exploited people in the world make the most frivolous goods and useless luxuries. Though these jobs are exploitative and contribute to unsustainable consumptive behavior they do allow people to eat and sustain their material lives. It is true that jobs would likely be created elsewhere, but elsewhere doesn't help that person who lost their job, that is unless elsewhere is in their community. Now, this does not mean that we should continue to spend frivolously to support those working in the maquiladoras or what have you, but it does mean when need to think specifically about how to make sure the most exploited and unfortunate do not, again, get the short end of the stick when rich countries decide to change their economic behavior.
James,
I think we generally are in agreement here on your points, though I would stress that the moral issues are complex and diffuse and require more thought. Can't wait to talk about them with you. Lastly, I hope you and your friends do not take my critiques to be hostile. Although my ethics have a different starting point than yours, I see myself engaged in the same project. I hope you see my comments as contributing to this.
Best,
Bryan
Definitely Bryan, you consistently drive me to think more deeply about my ideas. I appreciate that.
I think that an overly consumer-driven economy, like the one we live in, is bound to cause more tumult on a global scale due to the wild swings in demand that we are witnessing - from the height of indulgence to a reigning in of unnecessary spending in a few short months. Many jobs are created, then many jobs are lost. A simpler, more contemplative and empathetic economy would not be given to such swings. I'd like to move towards that. I agree that there are many issues associated with that move that must be considered and addressed. But in the long run I believe a simpler, more generous, more ethical economy will hold global benefits.
Post a Comment
<< Home