Number of wordsAn assessment of Cameron’s speech 1.1 Using your knowledge of the free markets perspective examine the ethics and morality of ‘let capitalism rip’ allegation made by British Prime Minister David Cameron (750 words)Examining the ethics and morality of “let capitalism rip” allegations made by British Prime Minister David Cameron using free market perspectives demand that a clear and concise definition to capitalism and an assessment of its application and outcome as out rightly alleged by the Prime minister. In addition we ought to give the principles of popular capitalism to bring out the contrast as wells as identifying different types of markets.
To start with capitalism in the market context could be defined as a system where no controls and regulations are imposed to interfere with demand, supply, and the prices of services commodities it is the laissez-faire system. With capitalism the right to own wealth is highly regarded and the state has little interference is business however its role is to ensure that there is no violation of rights of persons. On the other hand there are two main types of markets namely controlled market and free market.
A free market is the one described in early parts of this paragraph. This is the market where market forces such as demand and supply determine the prices and direction of production and investors rip the profit while the consumer derives satisfaction from their services. Cameron alleges that the preceding government had ignored the cooperate excesses and the results saw a few at the top rip the benefit. He argues that a better economy would be developed with increased market freedom.
With reference to ethical theories the utilitarian theory of ethics market perspectives which states that a system that is bound to benefit majority qualifies to be ethically right. The theory states that prior to application of a chosen system the applicant should be in a position to foretell and settle on the best option driven by profit. However, it is almost possible to predict the future and where similar incidences are used to form the bases sometimes the outcomes may not be the same. Therefore, according to this lens we would conclude say that the preceding government was acted unethically and that Cameron’s proposal if applied would be ethical.
According to the deontological theory of ethics market perspective the government should stick to its obligations to the public because actions are judged from the result and effects. According to the theory ones duty to the society is the most important aspect in the assessment of morality. Cameron’s emphasizes on social responsibility and the strength of the market being derived from the duty of responsibility. We can therefore argue that the government was acting in the good of the public by following the law that allowed for free market that would allow all to flourish as predicted however, the results did turned out as expected thus according to this theory the actions were quite ethical.
Modern consequential theory of ethics and market perspectives assesses ethics based on the consequences of an action. According to the proponents of this theory actions are correct if they are able to cause the most desirable results. Furthermore, the founders argue that a desirable result is categorized as the one that would lead to ultimate happiness therefore if any legislation can bring these results then the law is ethically correct.
Using this theory as a lens we find the consequence of allowing capitalism to rip could be multifaceted. Cameron argues that it is not advisable to take advantage of the problem currently market instead we should see a chance to influence positive changes. On one side somebody within the system benefited and in accordance with the theory the government’s actions allowed him to flourish and live well and he/she was happy.
In this context the will show that the government was ethically right. However, the larger part of the community was left in great hardships because they could not rip the benefit and the economy suffered causing regrets to many. In this second argument we could conclude that the government in a manner that was not ethical because its actions did not cause any pleasure or happiness at all. Therefore, Cameron may and may be not justified to put forward his allegations because the different theories allow us to derive different conclusions.
However, his speech should not offend anyone because his opinion was based on the theories supporting the fact that the party forming the former government relied on polices that could not lead to the realization of desirable results.