Equilibrium in systems
As a matter of ownership, money and its uses are an entirely personal matter. What we earn and where we spend it should ideally be no one else’s business. These are apparently morally neutral choices, which should be our own personal remit. However, given the scarcity of resources and the deeper implications of our actions, could our seemingly neutral moral choices have a moral hue to them?
The world sustains on a limited amount of resources with humanity having to grapple with scarcity. Like the earth’s natural resources, capital as a monetary good conforms to the standards of scarcity. There is and can only be a fixed stock of money around the world at any given point in time.
Central to the teachings of economics is the issue of scarcity. Every scarce resource will have multiple uses attributed to it. Will a cow be used for meat or milk? Will corn be used to feed livestock or feed humans? Should money that would otherwise be spent on buying an expensive designer bag be saved? Buy a new laptop or an iPhone? Meat or vegetables? The issue of scarcity dictates that we make choices in each and every one of our consumption, from smaller, petty choices regarding what to eat to larger life choices concerning one’s habitat and travel.
When scarcity is a defining aspect of the human condition and choices have to be made for each consumption decision, choices lose their amoral character. Because each rupee spent on dining out could have been spent elsewhere for a use that could have benefitted society, every choice takes on a moral hue.
The world sustains on a limited amount of resources with humanity having to grapple with scarcity. Like the earth’s natural resources, capital as a monetary good conforms to the standards of scarcity
The simplest example for this could be the following. Say, four acquaintances decide to dine out, opting to go for dinner at an expensive restaurant. A three course meal ensues. Between the four persons, a bill worth eight thousand rupees is shared. Divided between the four, the bill amounts to two thousand rupees per person. Alternately, these four individuals could perhaps opt out of dinner and, as the simplest means of redistributing income, give away a similar amount in charity. Surely, between spending eight thousand at a restaurant and giving away eight thousand to someone in need benefits the latter in a more meaningful manner.
Or take the example of eating meat. From an ecological point of view, between meat and vegetables, consumption of the latter makes for a more compelling case, as compared to the former. Consider that each kilogram of beef produced requires a staggering 15,415 litres of water. Each kilogram of chicken meat requires 4,325 litres of water. Compare this to cabbage which requires 237 litres of water and potatoes at 287 litres of water. Which begs the question, in a world where water resources are dwindling, should we maintain the status quo of meat as staple?
In the same vein, consumers of illicit substances must face up to the fact that their consumption of said illicit substances provides resources to a whole chain of criminal enterprises. Every gram of cocaine consumed fuels Mexico’s drug war, every gram of heroine places resources in the hands of criminal enterprises on both sides of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The furore over ‘blood-diamonds’ derived its force from the fact that diamonds mined in Sierra Leone and sold in the west were being used as a source of financing by various warring factions, thereby aggravating the country’s civil war.
Does this then indicate that some forms of consumption such as charity or providing start-up capital to an individual are consistently good moral choices while consuming at a an expensive restaurant or buying clothes from n designer are consistently less superior moral choices? Because these decisions exist in an ecosystem, our choices are bound to have an effect on such a system. While charity is to be considered a better moral choice, as compared to consuming at an expensive restaurant, too much of charity and too little of dining out might also result in a loss of equilibrium. By eating out at restaurants and allocating capital there, we ensure the sustained running of an enterprise and hence the livelihoods of people associated with the running of that enterprise. If one day, everyone decided to eschew dining out in favour of giving charity, individuals working at the restaurant would be rendered jobless, in which case charity would cease to be the better moral choice. At that moment, dining out would be a superior moral choice as compared to charity. As in all things associated with nature, balance is key.
The context of an action also holds broader moral implications for that action. For example, doling out money to crippled people on the road effectively creates a market for crippled people
The context of an action also holds broader moral implications for that action. For example, doling out money to crippled people on the road effectively creates a market for crippled people. In a ruthless environment without much legal or regulatory enforcement, there are bound to be people who realise that crippled individuals are able to earn more charity than their healthier brethren. As vividly portrayed in the movie ‘Slum Dog Millionaire’. In such cases, our charity might be a double edged sword, alleviating some people’s suffering whilst simultaneously severely aggravating it for others.
Central to economic tenets is equilibrium in systems. Too little of charity and people starve, too much of charity and people still starve. At a societal level, given how the effects of aggregate actions are somewhat quantifiable, this equilibrium may be found. However, on an individual level, when working as part of the ecosystem, balance is somewhat of a subjective, personal matter. And although each action on a personal level affects the ecosystem, the changes are miniscule at best. Which matters for little really because the magnitude of our impact should not detract us from the fact that seemingly innocuous choices are in fact exercises in morality.
