by Joseph Sunde

Economics is often seen as a dry and dreary subject. Boring graphs. Tedious analysis. Long-term trends. That sort of thing.

On the other hand, we all seem to have a significant interest in money (particularly spending it). But when it comes down to understanding how it works or what it represents, most of us would rather just pay for our cheeseburger and be done with it.

It’s no surprise then, that when it comes to matters of morality, most people would prefer to ignore the economic arguments altogether .

“People are losing their homes!” they’ll say. “How can you think about monetary policy at a time like this?”

In this worldview, we aren’t supposed to think about specifics — what must be done or how it must be executed. Rather, we are simply to ride our emotional impulses and cross our fingers, hoping that somehow justice will prevail. After all, if moral truth is intrinsic (it’s not) and the government is at our fingertips (it is), what’s stopping us?

Given the relative complexity of economics, it’s understandable how such a worldview could permeate so thoroughly. Indeed, the underlying confusion isn’t helped by the fact that many opponents of such a mindset often contribute to its elevation unknowingly.

For example, when countering claims of “unfairness” or “injustice,” our common response is to point out economic inadequacies rather than confront the moral claims on moral grounds. Economist types will point to perverse incentives, rampant inefficiencies, and bureaucratic excesses, rather than proclaiming the injustice of redistribution or discussing the merits of economic freedom over economic slavery.

Instead, we simply point to the numbers. Sometimes we will even say that socialism would be “wonderful” if it were realistically sustainable. But if we are truly serious about promoting the moral merits of human freedom (and more specifically, a free economy), such a statement is an appalling concession.

If we want to advance economic freedom in the belief that it leads to “authentic human flourishing,” we must recognize that the actual economics are secondary to the actual morality behind them. We must understand that the most fundamental moral framework behind the free enterprise system is reinforced by the economic data — it is not defined by it.

But how are we to go about this? If we are to analyze economic issues primarily on moral grounds, where should we begin?

In my view, there are two fundamental arguments we need to have, and once we recognize the key distinction between them, we can start tackling the actual economic issues more effectively.

First, we must have a discussion about the moral merits of various economic systems. This means determining which system excels in its moral treatment of citizens and which particular incentives and conditions are morally optimal. For those who prefer liberty to security, this would mean determining which economic system will maximize the empowerment of individual potential. Again, all incentives and conditions must be considered within the overarching morality of the system itself.

Second, we must move beyond particular economic systems and look at the moral validity of individual economic interactions. In other words, we must examine economics on a cultural level — one in which the particular economic system may play a role, but is in the end trumped by a more ultimate question about individual morality. Such arguments could involve matters related to entrepreneurship, particular business tactics, moral consumerism, or any number of individual economic decisions.

As I join the other writers of Ethika Politika, I hope to provide valuable analysis and commentary on these issues, as I myself continue to pursue the answers. I have my own hypotheses and assumptions — I assume you have yours — and I’m eager to test them.