The Cost of Morality in a Capitalist Society

In the dynamic landscape of our modern world, characterized by rapid technological advancement, rampant consumerism, and an increased focus on sustainability, we find ourselves in a tug-of-war between the needs and duties of the individual and those of the collective. At the center of this conflict, lies the dilemma: whose responsibility is it to do “the right thing” in a market economy?

Much like a natural ecosystem is orchestrated by individual self-serving parts, in a capitalist society it is not solely the individual's responsibility to influence collective action, such as shunning artificial intelligence due to ethical qualms or rejecting the use of plastic straws for environmental reasons. Instead, this is a chess match of incentives, expectations, and resources that should be addressed strategically by governing bodies.

The reasoning is clear and straightforward. Individuals, by nature and necessity, tend to focus on their immediate problems—securing a livelihood, ensuring personal and familial well-being, managing day-to-day tasks, delivering results at work, paying their bills. As such, burdening the individual with the responsibility of collective welfare inadvertently disadvantages those who choose to prioritize ethical and moral considerations, causing them to lag behind in a capitalist society that values pragmatism and monetary gain. It’s no wonder we often hear the cries to save the planet from the rich and famous (or from the youth, which doesn’t yet carry the full burden of providing for their families).

To understand this dynamic more clearly, let's consider a real-world scenario. A company launches a 'healthier' product as an alternative to its conventional counterpart. This product is an embodiment of the ideal mix of flavour, low calorie count, paired with environmental responsibility and sustainable practices. However, unless the healthier product matches the traditional one in terms of price and quality, consumers, particularly those under financial strain, would likely choose the conventional alternative. This choice is not an indictment of the consumers' ethical or health-consciousness standings but rather a pragmatic decision within a society where financial security and stability often dictate choices. And the proof is in the pudding: in Canada, obesity among women with no high school diploma is 2.2 times higher than those with a university degree (which is directly correlated with financial attainment), whereas among men, those with no high school diploma are 1.7 times higher to be obese than those with a university degree.

This scenario brings to light the inherent challenge in placing the burden of collective welfare on individuals, particularly within a capitalist society. In such a system, immediate financial pressures often overshadow the less tangible or immediate benefits of environmental, health, and other moral responsibilities. This dilemma is compounded in a society where financial status and material possessions are viewed as direct indicators of success and personal worth.

Zygmunt Bauman, a notable Polish sociologist and philosopher, offers a valuable lens through which to examine these societal challenges through his theory of "liquid modernity." Bauman suggests that modern societies have transitioned from a period of 'solid' modernity, characterized by long-term vision, predictability, and stability, into an era of 'liquid' modernity, defined by constant flux, uncertainty, and individualization.

In Bauman's liquid modernity, the collective responsibility for managing the uncertainties and contradictions of life has been transferred to the individual. Individuals, in this landscape, are expected to navigate their own path, address their own problems, and determine their own futures. This intensified individualization exerts increased pressure on individuals, exacerbating the complexity of societal challenges.

Let's illustrate this with the global issue of climate change. This problem is enormous, complex, and beyond the scope of individual actions to resolve fully. Yet, individuals are frequently encouraged, if not implored, to make personal lifestyle changes to combat climate change. This shift of responsibility can feel overwhelming, perhaps even futile, given the enormity of the problem. Those who cannot afford the often higher-priced eco-friendly alternatives may feel even further marginalized, exacerbating socio-economic divides.

This conundrum becomes even more pronounced within a capitalist society where people are responsible for taking care of themselves and their families, therefore making daily internal calculations regarding value versus price for just about everything. Those who strive to balance ethical consciousness with societal expectations may find themselves in a quandary, facing a society that largely rewards pragmatism and self-serving behaviors. This challenging situation can inadvertently penalize individuals who prioritize ethical considerations over personal gain, causing a disconnect between personal values and societal expectations—particularly when the more “ethically-conscious” choices are more expensive or not as efficient.

Take the nascent issue of AI. Months ago a long list of technologists, philosophers, professors, and more signed a letter to put a pause on all artificial intelligence experiments beyond GPT-4. This was a silly plea for several reasons: at the collective level, if Canada and its allies paused the course of innovation to give regulators a chance to catch up, this would give “bad actors” around the world a leg up to get ahead of these morally-conscious states and use AI for potentially catastrophic purposes. At the individual level, if a middle manager at a firm takes a stand and stops using AI for their daily work in the name of their human agency, but at the same time everyone else keeps using it (whether internally and/or externally), this morally-conscious individual will be left behind by the highly competitive labour market, which would now be delivering twice as much work in half the amount of time.

That is why in addressing these challenges, governing bodies have a pivotal role to play. And I don’t mean having members of parliament and senators attempting to impose rules on whether people can or cannot use X product—just look at the failed attempts at regulating social media, which if we use Bauman’s theory of liquid modernity, it’s a highly liquid ecosystem. Implementing incentives that at the individual level are marginal, but at the corporate level are considerable, accelerates the competitiveness of new technologies—think carbon taxes and the development of electric cars, which in recent years have fallen in price to the point now where people are no longer buying them to save the planet, but instead to save their money—that is the type of role that governing bodies can play.

When it comes to AI, people should continue to use it, hack it, develop new products with it, and more. It’s on industry governing bodies to determine guidelines on its usage for award contests (i.e.: XYZ award is for human-made ads only), while it’s on the government to devise a taxation system that takes into account the labour market impacts of mass AI adoption (i.e.: if AI makes 20% of the population unemployable, how should companies using AI for 20%+ of their activities be taxed differently? Should they pay more in taxes, that would then be funneled back to this new “unemployable base” to be trained and/or until they find a new place for themselves in the market?). This will be one of the great challenges of the 21st century.

In our increasingly fluid world, characterized by Bauman's concept of liquid modernity, we face challenges that are inherently collective and therefore require collective solutions. Governing bodies, thus, have an integral role to play in shaping policy and creating incentive structures that encourage collective change. Only through such systemic shifts can we alleviate the pressures on individuals and ensure that ethical consciousness doesn't become a liability in a capitalist society.

PPA