Finn’s that “we really understand the market only when we examine it within its [full] political, social, and cultural context” (p. 144). His use of the term the “moral ecology of markets” refers to his concept that markets involve complex interactions among a wide range of social factors that must be studied like an ecological system.
Finn has identified four areas of morality:(1) government imposed constraints to markets that prevent market abuses, also they various opinions from left and right hinge on where fences should be built (2) the provision of essential goods and services to all persons, that means to redress distributional shortcomings of the market and balanced the demand and supply. (3) the morality of individuals and groups to restrain individual pursuit of self-interest by virtue. 4) the presence of civil society, in other worlds voluntary associations of individuals to achieve common goals. He suggests, is not between addressing these problems through totally free markets on the one hand, or some sort of centrally planned system on the other, since all real-world economic systems include some mix of markets and government involvement. Market systems provide some boundaries that limit or prohibit certain practices, and planned economies allow some decisions to be made by individuals.
For all points of view from left to right, the assessment of justice will depend not only on the structure for markets themselves but also on the context of markets. Finn provides an economic defense of self-interest and market. Because he tried to believe that libertarians seek to defend markets without recourse to moral claims. However, they have failed eventually, because any defense of markets necessarily involves some moral claims, and indeed libertarians do accept some claims, though often implicitly.
So that Finn proposes the “four problems of economic life”—allocation, distribution, scale, and quality of relations—which all economic systems must address. The economic problems are interrelated, and attempts to solve on can have a beneficial or detrimental effects on the others. Begins with the “construction of fences” that defines the bounds of allowable market fences. They allow the established fences people are free to pursue their own interests. Simultaneously, USA people agree that current market fences are morally sufficient to prevent abuses.
Since Finn argues that do acting on self-interest within the game is allowed. The executives should be responsible to shareholders and employees. It is not just corporation get profits as a main purpose, but also managers should consider others. For example a company had shortage, executives does not lay off its workers during a downturn in demand but rather reduces the wages and salaries of company employees, because everybody has right to pursue their self-interest. Employees also need to pay for their family or terrible life.
Also, each person have desire to pursue self-interest in social and allow do acting within rules what they made, like the “construction of fences”, the multi-national corporation should obligate to treat all teams be fair. Finn’s arguments are not convincing. I do not think Finn’s account of self-interest promote mutual understanding. First, Finn’s account of self-interest fails to recognize that in most market exchanges neither the buyer nor the seller takes explicit account of his or her self-interest, nor the interest of others, but each simply “goes about his or her business. For example if I back to home and by the way go to supermarket to buy fruits and milk, I make calculations nor do I consider tradeoffs. I simply select the items, pay my bill, and head for home. I pursue my self-interest because I base my decision on factors such as convenience, bargains, but how often do “abuses” arise on account of self-interested behavior? Second, Finn’s account of self-interest is that he seems to equate self-interested behavior with market behavior. A government officer might seek to enlarge his budget, or the number of workers reporting to him, so