Satisfaction For Whom - Freedom For What

Satisfaction for Whom? Freedom for What?
Theology and the Economic Theory of the Consumer Author(s): Mark G. Nixon Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 70, No. 1, Today's Ethical Issues: Perspectives from the Business Academic Community (Jan., 2007), pp. 39-60 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25075270 . Accessed: 15/11/2013 20:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 75.17.89.122 on Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:06:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 70:39-60 DOI 10.1007A10551-006-9078-5
? Springer2006
Satisfaction forWhom? forWhat?

Theory
Freedom and the Economic

Mark G. Nixon
Theology
of the Consumer
ABSTRACT. which individual non, has assumes
The
economic individual to pursue an important
theory satisfaction satisfaction
of as
the its as
consumer, goal its sine and qua in
Christian of consumer
tradition. theory
The and
paper then
outlines focuses on
the three
assumptions aspects of
freedom become
the theory
individual
from a critical
in community,
theological
property
perspective:
and
the
hu
ideological
element
ownership,
political economy. Some have argued that the political of economics has evolved into a kind of dimension
"secular theology" that legitimates free market capital
man
destiny (or "eschatology" ogy). The principal conclusion

from this perspective,
in theological terminol is that consumer theory,

leads to a reductionist and
viewed
ism, which has become United States [Nelson:
in the of "religion" on Heaven 1991, Reaching for Earth: The Theological Meaning of Economics. (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Savage, Maryland); 2001,
Economics as Religion: From Samuelson to Chicago and Be
a kind
existentially
mization issues when paper argues of
harmful view
individual viewed that as a the include and
of human beings. The maxi

raises and could genuine value. ethical The if of a religious be
satisfaction political issues more
ameliorated treatment in
economists social theory economic
would
explicit alternatives give greater
yond (The Pennsylvania State University Press, Univer Thurow: 1983, Dangerous sity Park, Pennsylvania); Currents: The State of Economics (Random House, New York); Milbank: 1990, Theology and Social Theory, Beyond Secular Reason (Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, Massachu setts)]. Consumer theory in its ideological form provides an important base for this religion and is no longer
merely choice the view implicit compares a or positive estimating of in the human the economic framework market being, for understanding demand. the theory The paper consumer explores that is
dimension and
ethical would
consumer to
if theologians theory.
attention
KEY
WOPDS:
community,
consumer,
economics,
individual, Milbank, theology, utility
ownership,
religion,
social ethics,
"anthropology," of the consumer with the
and corre
its "theological"
implications
Introduction Discussions and between leaders economists people, hand and religious and ethicists on the other hand business on one
sponding
theological
anthropologies
in
the Judaeo political leaders, theologians about the justice and morality of specific business can often be and economic and policies practices from different frustrating. Arguing starting points the par assumptions, terms often in that seem express themselves ticipants foreign to one another, feel as if they are talking past each other, and conclude the by wondering why see clearly what party cannot appears to be to obvious all. Accusations of greed and uncaring are or unrea countered by charges of impracticality other
sonableness.
Mark Nixon
&
(mnixon@fordham.edu) is a doctoral student in Master ofArts in Humanities theology and coordinatorof the
Sciences in Program postmodern at Fordham theology, University, social theory, with and research ethics. He
interests
received his B.A. (Religion) from Oberlin College, his M.B.A. and M.A. (Political Economy) from Stanford University, and hisM.A. (Theology)from Fordham Uni
versity. He has also completed the course requirements for the
and on
the basis of different
Ph.D. His
where
(Economics) at The George Washington University. business career includedmore than 20 years with IBM
he held several staff, years management as director and executive positions, Busi of IBM's Advanced
including ness Institute.
40 Mark One versations theories source of is that these con the difficulty address the assumptions and the the participants' positions convictions on the about in
G. Nixon hours at work and an almost frantic of
rarely that inform
specific issues. These underlying and specific issues are the world economic doctrines, theological ical philosophies that are deeply versation and partners' personal and development.
casual discussion.
as activity a significant life's goal. Life itself is devalued by to an end rather than an end in it as ameans viewing individual and achievement itself. there is growing Worldwide, disparity between the the rich and the poor, with the wealthy defining economy while priorities of the world production
pursuit that is viewed
often
embodied
theories, and polit rooted in the con cultural lend formation to

an
They
However,
do not
themselves
under
without
a clarification, at of differences standing, or at least this level, the debates about the goals of economic systems, or advocacy of specific practices and policies are problematic This paper theoretical that and unresolvable. an analysis at this deeper area of fundamental beliefs these discussions: the provides level of one informs of how human
intense poverty persists globally. As one example, the average U.S. household consumption expendi ture for pets is greater than the per capita annual incomes of roughly 20% of the world's people, who make
even
the equivalent
more extreme
of less than $1 per day.

example, high-wealth
In an
consum
frequently
understanding
pursue happiness that they make.
beings conceive of and choices the consumption through con it and compares Specifically,
with on-board luxury yachts, complete and staffs that meticulous individ heliports provide of ual attention around the clock, for hundreds thousands of dollars a week, while adults and chil dren diseases in many poor countries for which inexpensive of die of starvation or vaccines are available
ers hire
trasts the axioms of the neoclassical economic theory constitute the anthropology of the consumer, which or view of the human being that is implicit in free or religious the theological market economics, with and Judaism. that inform Christianity anthropologies that usually principles explores remain tacit with the hope that clarifying differences in these basic ideas can lead to more fruitful policy It identifies discussions, theologians
respective humane world.
but outside Each
these populations' financial reach. these concerns and examples involves for serious consequences are others who
choices that have consumption for both and the consumer affected. ethical different bution economic
them.
and
They concern
to those who
are also of particular advocate
set of priorities of wealth and policies
and religious a significantly the redistri together with resources in and changes be required to achieve
to
changes
and
in how the
economists of
to even
and their
a more
that may
approach
disciplines,
intersection
perhaps
Consumer anthropology:
and theological theory four theses
Why
focus
on
the
consumer?
The
The American to grow
in the aggregate continues economy at a steady rate and many people in the U.S. prosperity, currently enjoy a high level of economic especially relative to the rest of the world. Yet, there concern is not right. that something is increasing Individual employment, and household uncertainty persists about the ends meet, the ability to make of of health care, and the adequacy There is dissatisfaction with
economic and between theory relationship a was one 18th until the late close century. theology traces of the evolution (1980) early Schumpeter economics scholastic as a field of study from notes its origins that most in of
theology (Schumpeter the economic theory of the 17th century could have taken from the 16th century been Spanish Jesuit its consider Luis de Molina1) through theologian ation
affordability savings for retirement.
as a topic within natural theology (Locke's the influenced Essay Concerning Human Understanding awork later empirical tradition but Locke also wrote and Adam of Christianity;" at Smith taught natural theology Glasgow College Moral Sentiments), to where he also wrote his Theory of its eventual separation from theology during the 18th on the "Reasonableness
the political system and a longing for a deeper set of can often be found in normal work and values than States, communities popular culture. In the United and families are weakened by the stresses of long
Satisfaction for Whom? century

(e.g.,
Freedom for What? 41 free market anthropological theologically, differ from and are at assumptions fundamentally odds with in Jewish and Christian anthropologies three main ways. First, they are rigorously in asocial contrast with the strongly social understanding of the individual Second, in the Judaeo-Christian anthropologies. to their view of the individual's right Viewed
as secular philosophies
utilitarianism
of
(e.g.,
individual
Bentham),
rights
and
Rousseau),
(e.g., Hume) empiricism philosophical prevailed. In recent decades, there has been renewed atten tion to the relationship between and eco theology nomics as church leaders have asserted the moral of economic responsibilities ment of the human person 1981, 1987, 1991) raised concerns about consumer to the develop (e.g., Pope John Paul II, and economic have philosophers systems the
of ethical implications 2001; 1983, McMurtry, theory (Hodgson, to intention in this paper is to contribute 1999). My this ongoing debate by developing the following four
and unilateral of initial ownership disposition resource endowments and acquired possessions for satisfaction conflicts with purely personal Judaeo Christian which understand individual views, as resources of for the benefit ownership stewardship aswell as the individual. A radical of the community amount of ownership for personal satisfaction may to a kind of heresy from a Christian their lack of a historical Third, spective. even per time
nomic
theses that address the relationship between the eco consumer of the and the theory theological inherent in Judaism and Christianity. anthropologies 1: Consumer
view
dimension theory embodies an anthropology or understanding of the human being that is theoretically problematic even as an economics of human choice. Thesis source of contention significant issues is the view of the human A "anthropology," reinforced by an economic maximization an ultimate this satisfaction of immediate value that is embodied system individual about these
tialist decision immediate, and destiny amoral in
and their application of the consequen criterion of achieving current, even a satisfaction view of human implies
the being, in and deeply that asserts the satisfaction as is or to pursue system system of what in
that is short-sighted and happiness the perspective of Christianity and a view which decisions within Judaism, history that extends from the creation of the world to its ultimate fulfillment Thesis at the end of time.
and individual
freedom
variously capitalism; constitutes neoclassical theory a purely Thesis
as its sine qua non. This referred to as the free market and its metanarrative human economic thriving or "story" is articulated
4: There is an opportunity to develop a richer economic theory as a basisfor dialogue on economic issues using theological insights from Judaism and Christianity. is also an opportunity for new directions in theology based on a deeper reflection on economic theory and practice. There
There
the
is problematic economic 2: Consumer

has come
theory of the consumer. This as an anthropology even from theoretical point of view. its anthropological
an ideology or even a
theory, with
to constitute
is benefit in a more vigorous and ongoing - at a economics between and the dialogue theology a oretical level of concerning deeper understanding human behavior with regard to economic choice. Such a dialogue will lead both theologians and economists to a clarification economic theorized of the real human and how issues involved in activity activity a clarification and theologized, that could a more to lead just and hopeful world. economic is both
assumptions,
doctrine in a "secular economic theology." In spite of these economic that is inherent anthropology theoretical in consumer issues, the
theory's is nevertheless often advanced assumptions ideolog and even at times as ically as a normative prescription an element justify of a "secular economic theology" system. to support and the overall
Thesis 1 : Consumer or
theory embodies an anthropology of the human being that is the understanding even as an economics of oretically problematic
choice.
human
Thesis 3: The anthropology inherent in consumer theory is at odds with Jewish and Christian understandings of the human being, which offer, in theirjudgment, a more hopeful view of the person in community and of human destiny.
The heart of the neoclassical theory of the con sumer may be summarized "A briefly as follows: maximizes his utility when he distributes his person
42 Mark available money among the various goods so that he the same amount of satisfaction from the last of money (emphasis "Gossen's each spent upon commodity as This known formulation, added)." to the mid-19th dates back Law,"
G. Nixon 1. People maximize People they want and need in order to their satisfaction or utility generate demand for goods and services by choices based on their wants consumption know what and firms respond by producing goods to satisfy the demand. This is referred to
sovereignty."
obtains unit
making and needs,

as "consumer
It acquired greater analytical development century. in subsequent work and mathematical formulation and Marshall which also increas Hicks, by Jevons, the abstract principle ingly emphasized or pleasure the enjoyment satisfaction, consumption, benefits derived as the consumer's cept of revealed cornerstone of textbook Koutsoyiannis Varian, 1990), the usefulness consumer's rather from than the of individual derived or from useful
and services One
is of this assumption consequence to about the of morality effectively push questions is produced what decisions and back to consumers' ethical behavior and the harmless and to hold community from moral the economic that sustains system itself ? the system
utility of commodities consumption In Samuelson's (1947) con goal.
has become the preferences, which recent research and contemporary formulations 1978; (e.g., Nicholson and Blinder 1979; Baum?l 1997; the theory lost any need to deal with of goods, focused instead on the
and evaluation. responsibility is used by market For example, the principle advo cates to exonerate gun producers and retailers from for injuries and deaths from gun any responsibility kill people, shot wounds don't because "Guns
people
simply wanting more or less of a good at and assumed the margin within budget constraints, the of goods basket that axiomatically preferred the consumer's maximized utility. While goods, 1971, 1981; 1979; Becker, 1975, Koutsoyiannis the range Becker and Murphy, 2001) have extended to include commodities" such of "consumable crime, racial discrimi things as family relationships, even and life itself. nation, pollution, the theory is applied most often to material certain economists 1978; (e.g., Nicholson
same principle kill people." The could be to the of chemical and manufacture nuclear, applied arma or in trade international biological weapons It responsible is the purchaser/consumer for any moral consequences. who is
ments.
2. People act individually in making choices and arefree to make their choices without constraints imposed by others Individual ideals autonomy that are given liberty are not simply in the theory; they expression for the theory to be true. This and
are logically required of the theory and individual freedom is a cornerstone for there is no theoretical consideration of space
either posed social by or moral constraints tradition, or that might values. In be particular, im custom,
The problematic anthropological assumptions of consumer theory Consumer necessary

delineate a
issues arise if people make theoretical that would based on a social welfare function serious set of five collectively
satisfac
choices include
theory
secular
rests on or
assumptions
the following axioms that

of human
other people (Arrow, 1951; Sen, 1995, 1999).4 The market demand for goods (i.e., the quantities of each at all possible prices) be purchased good that would is calculated by summing all of the individual choi them into a "social" demand ces, not by integrating
curve that involves tradeoffs among consumers.
metanarrative
so simple and are generally assumptions that they receive little attention appear so plausible and are rarely debated. Then, once they are agreed as a starting point for further analysis, they quietly tion. These slip into developed Yet each the background without much of them and further the theory can be to them. attention
Individual consideration
choice
does
not,
of course,
rule out
and Sen cautions of others, against "the 'low-minded of assuming that sentimentalism' is constantly motivated everyone per entirely by sonal self-interest." the neoclassical altruism in But, incorporating is problematic. Becker (1981), as a what he describes has developed model and by a corresponding "family in the utility including
At this implications. we will the and list pro assumptions point, simply issues that vide brief examples of the implicit moral sections of this paper will they raise. Subsequent has moral examine broader theoretical and moral concerns.
for example, theory of altruism utility function,"
Satisfaction for Whom? calculations other each family member the utility of consists of members. Altruism here family in the interest of maximizing individual sacrifice of
Freedom for What? 43 national is implicitly economies, in a set of and results This accepted perpetuated. ? ? and hence production pri global consumption orities that favor wealthy countries and individuals. and worldwide
family utility, such that the individual's overall utility is also increased. For example, a husband might give income the related up his job and sacrifice by a family household move that enables his accepting a salary increase that to take a position with wife more the family's loss of his in than compensates so that both he and she can enjoy a higher come, level of consumption. construction remains individual satisfaction. this theoretical Nonetheless, of rooted in the maximization
of initial endowments This unequal distribution is central to understanding economic how devel can expand in opment especially consumption, and poor countries; tional policy debates "over consumption" abysmal beings. With the it is a basic over issue in interna the inequity of resource in wealthy countries given
and labor, demand. But mand
of human of the majority poverty few resources beyond their own time effective do not generate poor people this lack of effective consumer de economies respond the growth to the demand and limits
3. People have perfect information about all of the attributes of the available goods and services available to them and rationally evaluate them in terms of the satisfaction that they will bring If people did not have perfect information, then, ex that are made among other things, the choices ante on the basis of imperfect information might not result ex post in the expected satisfaction. Economists of assuming that the heroic implausibility recognize have perfect information but accept it as an initial assumption, while the literature on deci consumers sion-making
to grow.
in developing of firms that would thereby create
poor. view
employment a vicious It becomes
for the opportunities The neoclassical cycle.
as: the be characterized succinctly might poor are poor because they are poor and they will a crit remain poor because they are poor. Thus, ical first increase step and in developing economies is often to endowments reallocate the existing external aid or land reform); but the tends to reify the status quo. is
(e.g., basic
through theory
under
imperfect
information
continues 5. People's preferences and choices are for "now." There no "tomorrow," no historical time dimension
4. The This
consumer is endowed with
owned resources that
The
impacts
of
choices
made
allow choices to be consummated is required because the principal assumption a curve to at is the arrive of demand theory objective for goods, and economic demand is always "effective
demand" list" that can be exercised, these not endowments simply a "wish are at the of wants. Further,
concerning time (e.g., not

versus capital
the consumption the degradation
(e.g., of fossil fuels) on a later are of the environment) alloca today

of
at one
time
relevant
tomorrow
tion of resource
in the theory. The consumer's for consumption endowments

is treated or in saving a separate and
theory investment.
formation
disposal of the consumers who own them and have to exercise their own volition in how the freedom are used. This and freedom of use, they ownership essential to the economic theory and protected by law in the United component
to exist.
Consumer
theory's assumption of perfect knowledge obviates the need to consider historical time, since, if are known the future consequences of decisions (or addressed
then
in the form of a probability

analyses can treat time
distribution),
as a purely
States
and other
critical
free
of the value
is a societies, that enables system
economic
markets
of the endowments, The magnitude where they come from, and their distribution among consumers, are simply ignored by consumer however, theory; they have. The practical people just have whatever moral wealth concern and is that the current distribution of extreme observed resources, including consumer across local, among participants
(Vickers static only analysis. It can be demonstrated conditions are met,
logical circumstances
variable
and
independent 1994). The
of theory
historical supports
logically that if these five then goods and services will be
and distributed in a way that optimally produced satisfies consumer preferences, subject to the overall resources at a given constraint of the available
point.
disparities
44 Mark Some theoretical economic issues with consumer theory
G. Nixon to programming) consumer preferences, has little meaning and make choices that usually satisfactory others have enable to theoretical of analysis the concept of maximization to most people who live their lives on the basis of "rules of thumb" the
In the context consumer hypotheses framework dictions
of a positive economics, the theory of a source choice constitutes of testable that could prove conceptually and testing empirical activity remedies for useful as a pre and
for making about consumer
them to "get by" in away that is them what Herbert Simon and
in a free market
possible or failures. However, imperfections in problems using it this way.

First, the economic concept
identifying
any there are several

consumer
market
of
satis
called "satisficing" (March and Simon, ? not know and would if they 1958; Simon, 1976) were or could be or sat "maximally" "optimally" isfied within their budget constraint by any given combinations of goods. the assumption of perfect information is not it is untenable both from an merely heroic, logically and epistemologi economic, analytical perspective Third, cally. Analytically, every individual knowledge what as Vickers in a market points out, for to have perfect system each would need to know (1994) will do or choose in The
or utility makes about whether hypotheses in individuals satisfaction and are, fact, maximizing It is, of course, both possible and utility unfalsifiable. useful for many reasons to investigate individual and faction group satisfaction experiences; are measured may
sions.
products, and levels of consumer through responses useful information

the measures are
with
services satisfaction
and that deci

for
simultaneously
in marketing for business

at best a
studies every other under different response tortured to one's individual
provide
However,
proxy
experiences. and satisfaction are subjective characteristics Utility of individuals that become in any self-fulfilling are a means whatever person empirical test. They by and independent them, and there are no objective units for measuring them across consumers (Harsa nyi 1955). This subjective consider if the to aspect has led some economists consumer even of the is theory
the actual satisfaction
that the consumer
conditions contemplated own projected action.
tered on other
that duopoly problems theory encoun are that level well known. When every on individual's action every proposed depends
individual's action, it is simply not possible to say that there are sufficient degrees of freedom in the system for all market to have participants knowledge.
perfect
necessary or useful. The economist's primary focus is on aggregate, not individual, demand for goods and services and on the estimation of price and income elasticities; approaches
consumer
the problem of perfect knowl Epistemologically, consumers make is when real edge compounded these decisions the "logical" To in real historical time time as opposed theory: he or she to in the economic
and
there
or
are theoretical
for deriving
utility
and empirical these without the use of

functions. None
preference
ask an individual
in real time what
theless, consumer always

and
an economic choice
science
that had no
remain
get
to put would, at the "molecular"

to the "atomic"
theory of it metaphorically, level of analysis

or "sub-atomic"
would
never
to change is to ask, in do if the price were the individual would do if his or her effect, what entire knowledge environment and epistemic status were different. It is to ask, what the indi do if he or she were different. How can one one would do say what when ...epistemologically, what one would be if one were it is impossi if one were
would
economics importantly, lack a "personal It would face." be more difficult to tie the workings of an impersonal market to individuals and it would if not be harder, rea that
levels. More
free market
vidual would different ble different.
to know
to draw on the concepts of human impossible, and consumer choice son, personal freedom, so make the free market ideologically powerful.
the concept of utility maximization Second, while to apply certain mathematical economists allows linear calculus, optimization techniques (e.g.,
consumers on say that surveying in the prices of goods and services how changes would affect their consumption would levels, yield or useless but the information; meaningless This
is not
to
Satisfaction for Whom? responses would inevitably be uncertain. Moreover, reliability the time for which the the more to deal ditions. and their speculative the more distant
Freedom for What? 45 The view of the world is equilibrium price-auction a traditional view with a history as old as that of economics itself: the individual consumer is asserted to be a
is posed, survey question difficult would be the consumer's ability in real terms with the ceteris paribus con The theoretical rests in problem time and the presumption not just speculation. issues have choice. the of been Sen
of logical assumption consumer knowledge, Finally, fundamental raised (1973) about what has evaluated individual
or producer within free maximizing an markets that establish supply-demand equilib rium price for any kind of goods or service. This is an economics consis blessed with an intellectual tency, and one having implications the realm of conventional beyond ory. It is, in short, also a political becoming Robert something approaching that extend economic far the
analytical constitutes rational
imizing well-known the
the rationality of utility-max choice within the context of the if each of where, own self-interest regard for off. Sen
often philosophy, a religion.
"prisoners' dilemma" maximizes individuals his
and without based on expected outcomes the other party, both parties are worse
goes further. as Religion, he think of themselves as scientists, begins: "Economists but as Iwill be arguing in this book, they are more like theologians (Nelson to "offer a theological 2001)."12 He then proceeds of exegesis of the contents and to evaluate in terms the of
H. Nelson, also an economist, In the preface of his book, Economics
act the consequentialist, (1977) also questions why individual self-inter based criterion of maximizing est that we so far is really required as have described in consumer the basis for "rationality" theory when: or a sense of that commitment (1) there is evidence rather than immediate decision criterion consequences for people; (2) people on rules of behavior rather is a
modern current
economic schools whose of
thought" economic
their contributions religion
thought to the tenets of a new,
secular
obligation common than
often base their decisions
individual acts; and (3) there is evidence in experiments with the prisoners' dilemma (not to mention that do observation) people everyday consider the interests of others and choose to do the unselfish particular, thing. needs He argues that "commitment," as an element to be incorporated in of
de prophesy on in existence the the of God necessary any pended of its themes hereafter" but which "draws many from the biblical tradition, now typically reworking them in a less direct and mostly implicit fashion." "economic This which builds on an earlier more he provided (Nelson, of the rationale: book 1991) in
has not
Material limited
in the economic rationality theory of consumer choice along with a social dimension that recognizes that groups the provide (e.g., class, community)
context mitment. and basis of many actions involving com
for scarcity and the resulting competition resources have been widely seen as the ? cause of human misbehavior fundamental the
real source of of modern human sinfulness economic .... For many eco
faithful
theologies,
nomic
vation
progress
to a new
has represented
heaven on earth,
the route
the
of sal
of
means
Thesis 2: Consumer assumptions,

or even a
its anthropological theory, with an ideology has come to constitute

in a "secular economic
banishing Those market who
evil from are
the affairs of mankind.
doctrine
economics
to free committed ideologically do not view the theoretical sec in the preceding a positive economic
theology."
that were addressed objections as tion cautions against using
In light of these conceptual and practical issues, it is reasonable to question why the theory persists as a focus for economic analysis. The most compelling answer ence.
secular economist,
theory as an ethical standard. Rather they view them as hindrances so that the market may to be overcome work to its fullest extent. In short, consumers may not behave choices, but they should in Individuals may be constrained to achieve how they use their resource endowments satisfaction, but they should not be. Society personal behave rationally that way. in making
is that economics It is a normative

? theology comments as
sci is not just a positive - even a social philosophy

well. Lester Thurow, an
that
46 Mark
or limit consumer access to certain con
G. Nixon initial endowments. issues for raise The theory's assumptions a Judaeo-Christian view of the human a secular ideology, the consumer theory
may
deny
(e.g., prostitution, drugs, guns), but it should statements articulate a strong libertarian not. These sumables view which that constitutes benefits the the limit of situation for deriving system, supports. The theory of the consumer more is normative argument general and moderate at in that the free market least the is, system theory, most faction met effective system and well-being consumer satis for achieving are as long as these conditions they should be met. social and ideological the theoretical the free market
being. As and the free market understood
system that it supports may be as a competing religion. to consumer Perhaps the greatest objection theory is from a Judaeo-Christian, perspective theological that it is asocial amoral (exclusive focus on (a purely consequentialist satisfaction maximization), and ahistorical as treats time From theory "logical"). only decision the individual), criterion (the this the to a and the
of
and therefore
a pragmatic perspec the tive, theory of consumer choice is essential to the It system founded on the free market. socio-political From serves minds system system sumption desirable legitimate of individuals. to the The economic system idea that the free market in the
theological communal valorization command selfish
the axioms violate perspective, nature of the human being, lead of individual rights ownership or dominion and over detriment possessions of other to
is based on "consumer experiential to achieve and
gives the sovereignty" con and validates "weight" individual satisfaction as socially
Ultimately, the human
axioms of The important. theory's freedom and rationality choice, economic social values and make the economic become system and defending worth preserving lives, (with people's individual even if the economic if necessary), of consequences the system may be harmful to particular individuals or segments
tive system
people. they lead to a loss of a reason to hope in prospect as human destiny is reduced to the present maximization of satisfaction with goods in is that cannot, the end, satisfy, but as violence
exclusion
on people and nature to pre wreaked serve the right to try and achieve that satisfaction. As and Sedgwick Britton the (2003) have summarized con situation: of the theory of the anthropology nevertheless torical sumer choice is "individualist, value-free and a-his .... The Christian account could not be more It presupposes a different of of of
the
of society
that was
at a given
"irrational"
point. An
(e.g.,
alterna
based on
different.
admittedly subjective uals were constrained choices wealth
individ values) and in which in the others (i.e. "unfree") by
understanding on turns It and of the memory rationality history. certain events, but the primary focus is not one Rather
engenders ...." short, consumer theory constitutes a metanar
that they could make using their income and at least would hardly find such acceptance, in the United States. inherent in consumer
memory.
practices future In
participation
a sense of
in
hope
communal
for
currently
Thesis 3: The theory
and Christian Jewish of the human offer, understandings being, which a more view of the in their judgment, hopeful person The in community and of human destiny. in the
anthropology is at odds with
that is at odds with Judaism and Christianity that is more and betrays a deficient anthropology rative radical than mere economic carping about the realism of specific assumptions. The fundamental theological to free market consumer theory identified in three broad of the human exercise areas:
objections above can be elaborated ? ? Ownership

creation; and
theory for theological
focus provides its axiomatic char of because study the acter, its strong social and value dimensions, in the free it role that legitimating ideological plays
system, and the often adverse consequences
secular anthropology of consumer choice
that is inherent a critical
The
communal and
nature the
being; of dominion
over
The
market
of
system for those it encompasses, those who are seriously disadvantaged with the
especially regard to
character of the human destiny in that theological terminology) ("eschatology" is inherent in an ahistorical concept of consumer destructive
satisfaction.
Satisfaction for Whom? The communal nature of the human being economic individual view of the consumer begins
Freedom for What? harmful dimension Britton
47 that treats the communal
The modern with the Christian
munity, both present source Christians,
alone whereas the Judaeo in com with the individual begins a in which God is community specifically, view and of ultimate concern as creator and
activity abstractly. and Sedgwick (2003) use the concept of to of God the theological understand the image in economics. of the consumer They significance
anthropology of human
of meaning and value. For both Jews and and ethical this governing theological in the two stories of creation In both creation with is "God-made" in stories,
in the context point out that this must be understood of the relational emphasis that is integral to Judaism. the concept of the image of They argue that when in Christianity, it does not consist pri of exercise the of rational thought and deci marily can become vain, but rather calls people sion, which to imitate God's love, which must be reciprocated God is used and exercised forms God never of does Christian within individual view. That is, not all community. in a satisfaction are legitimate Insofar as creation in the image of
paradigm originates the biblical Book of Genesis. the human
specific being that devolve from the relationship responsibilities elements of with God, but each story has distinctive and to one how human relate to God beings another. human Dei) The The being and given dominion/lordship in Genesis second account dimension on the human of story as made in the image 2-3 first in Genesis 1 views of God over the (imago the earth. the its with
reason
establishes
justice, nity. But sented human
it is include individual reason as God-like, as a value in itself but only as it serves the commu and love within righteousness this communal 1. The aspect is not clearly repre the between
communal reflection
(nephesh) in community. together in order to provide Christian theological are addressed contributions
personhood being as living creature Both stories must be taken Jewish
a satisfactory Their anthropology. in turn below.
or
relationship God creates, being and God is unidirectional; sustenance as a gift. and provides blesses, commands to God. It is a relationship of grateful subservience relationship cifically described between man and woman
in Genesis
respective
The
Genesis God
I: The
human
(imago Dei) the earth
in the image of being made over with dominion/lordship
is spe to only with regard to a command even and "be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:28)" one another in filling with their cooperation the earth and subduing it is unclear. The broader rela communal and Sedgwick 1. Christian a communal and ethical draw must that implications be found outside of
tional, Britton Genesis One ducing economic
Those
free market
who
congruence, view kind's due
argue for the compatibility, between the biblical tradition

are quick to correlate the
or even and the

economic
theological dimension
of the individual with creation God's
the account
of human
and with
in Genesis 1 in the "image of God" to human beings to sub command over all living the earth and exercise dominion
analysis within to understand as Trinity. Robert God G. Simons of the (1995), for example, begins his understanding economic person based on the idea of person in the as a loving commu he summarizes Trinity which
for intro approach into a theological 1 is the context of Genesis
A theological (Gen. 1:27-28). reading of as in has been the God created of humanity image as the basis for the defense and used constructively things dignity of all human life and of the intrinsic value of or each individual no matter what race, ethnicity, it is insufficient social status. Taken alone, however, to address Rather, the issues involved focus an exclusive activity. the concept of the as some have extended, on doctrine and of the in economic
nity of persons: "the Father gives himself totally to the Son, the Son gives himself totally to the Father, and the Spirit, proceeding from both, is the bond of that pure economicus Simons Trinity, love." self-giving is also understood affirms bias of homo By analogy, as a related person. the Christian doctrine of the relational necessary as a to the life, challenge in economic and its theory as merely an aggregate of the
considers which of
even when image of God, to include the Christian done, an ambiguous in results Trinity,
ground individualistic understanding individuals.
all human
society
potentially
48 Mark there is still ambiguity, and an alter However, 1 that minimizes native the reading of Genesis communal munal view is found economic element is also possible. This less com of the human being as the image of God "personalist apologetic in the works This apologetic focuses on for the
G. Nixon
as are
"solvent,"
insofar
they
endowed
with
pur
in an alternative
are chasing power, as are insofar of "marketable," they capable a are many obtaining satisfactory price. But there It human needs which find no place on the market. fundamental is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow human needs to remain unsatisfied, those burdened by such needs to
and for those resources which
the free market." von Mises
anthropology and draws its theological of Karol Wojtyla selective reading of the philosophy Paul who "underlines II) (Pope John [the] two
and of Hayek support from a
and not to allow perish. And again, historical
as fun and God-likeness qualities of creatureliness to the human person."21 While this apol damental the social dimension of the ogetic acknowledges person, Wojtyla's the emphasis (1979) work in the material is on drawn from
The
is the proper dynamic which Self-determination, .... of the person basis for the development Only one of himself and is the who has possession simultaneously
session can be a
of theWest, for its part, experience that even if the Marxist analysis and its are false, nevertheless of alienation foundation alienation and the loss of the authentic meaning ? is a reality inWestern societies too. This of life are en in when consumerism, happens people a snared in web of false and superficial gratifica shows tions rather than being helped to experience their an concrete in authentic and way. personhood
his own
person ....
sole and exclusive

It is not without
pos
reason
then
that medieval
relationship
philosophers in the phrase, persona
this expressed est sui juris.
This
as In this context, homo economicus, here conceived person in command of himself or herself, appears to have ontological But, priority over community. while the apologetic may address self-determination as a necessary it for human condition fulfillment, does not address the interaction of people in a social
or economic context. and then It champions tends to individual view market liberty par as paramount
1 as a standalone analysis indicates that Genesis basis for understanding homo economicus in his or her can lead to ambiguity. role as individual consumer theological that human
it that references anthropology are in the of created beings image God and that the human person is relational; but this can lead either to a strong view of the communal Each holds as in Simons, or to exaltation of the choice. These individual freedom and primacy a to in elements analyses point important theological for understanding that are relevant anthropology dimension, of
economic activity, but additional elements are nee
ticipation
erations.
independently
In the marketplace,
of personal
one
moral
operates
consid
in a
rational There losophy sonalist Wojtyla
and pragmatic way to satisfy personal is clearly some correlation between of individual philosophy requires the recognition and
needs. a phi
ded in order self-determined,

dominion
to avoid
all
the idolization
self-possessed
creation.
and
of the human as as having
liberty and the Christian per to But fairness of Wojtyla. that his views (John in a ef
over
Genesis
2-3:
the
human
being
as
living
creature
Paul II, 1991 Wojtyla

determination broader view
(1993)) of personal self
(nephesh) The second
in community account of creation in Genesis
are situated self-possession that is critical of the free market's and disadvantaged:
fects on the poor It would nations market resources this is
which
appear that, on the level of individual the free and of international relations, is the most efficient instrument for utilizing and effectively true only for responding those needs to needs. But which are
2?3, the story of Adam and Eve and the a to God, results of their disobedience provides a to Genesis 1 view of and richer balance necessary relevant to the human person that is actually more includes consumer second
to it. This theory and useful as a corrective a prominent account role in has played in the its Christian development theology through
Satisfaction for Whom? doctrine human views all which the Mystical Body, as to Christ related through beings integrally the community of the Church. Jewish and Christian of those 1?3 together arrive that rely on
Freedom for What? rather than
49
that view Genesis anthropologies at different conclusions from Genesis Genesis earth man/'adam his nostrils 1 alone. 2 describes from human and God's breath: of
owners have constraints (2:15); who their form (2:16?17), who placed consumption families (2:24), who make ethical choices (3:6), who work bear for their livelihood (3:19), and who on children with This eration the help of the Lord (3:16, 4:1). of nephesh also leads to a consid concept and be disciplined appetites might In the Hebrew life can be ordered. culture
beings as created from formed "The Lord God blew into
of how
the dust of the earth. He
a life, and man became In the (Tanakh, Gen. 2:7)." living being/nephesh account of God's creation of human beings from the breath 2 we a human have amuch richer characterization of the being in Genesis and power of kingship strong overtones 1:26-27. Von Rad has called (1962) nephesh "the important is than adam alone with
practical this was accomplished that the Scriptures describe, was to which always directed through Torah/law, the community and defined the interrelationships in terms the community among individuals within In fact, as H. of their relationship with God. Wheeler Robinson out, each (1964) has pointed individual's moral the entire judgment represented and the idea through community implicated of corporate personality and communal guilt. Hoff context "in adds the of that status that, (2005) term which this [i.e., corporate typified nephesh, personality] together
group could
Genesis what
most
in concept [Old Testament] it "The nephesh feels hunger, anthropology." it it it feels and, hates, loves, weeps loathes, anger, most important of all, can die. The nephesh dwells in it is clearly distinguished from the 'flesh,' though It is an animating force. A nephesh has intel lectual capabilities but these do not have the strong as to man rational aspects that are often assigned it." 1. In short, nephesh includes "imago Dei'9 in Genesis more real persons that correlate aspects nearly with It eschews the abstrac economic decisions. making tion that characterizes homo economicus viewed as a decision maker, exercising control rational, God-like over creation. The of the human understanding being's creation in Genesis 2 and the story of Adam and Eve that develops from it address elements of community both Jewish These Adam and responsibility that are essential to and Christian anthropologies.29 dimensions clearer as the story of become
meant in the
even
individuals were same

cover more
mutually
a
bound Such a
'nephesh experience'.
than
generation."
The
implications of Torah are spelled out an set of principles in (e.g., economic evolving and debt forgiveness exchanges damages, lending, and restoration of property, manumission), but they economic always with the community, the indi a within communal strong acting this understanding of the theology, as nephesh was the integrated with of psyche/soul and subsequently with In Latin concept of anima/soul. it became central to the Catholic on
are all focused vidual

structure.
In Christian human Greek being
concept the corresponding this development,
doctrine Christ.
In Genesis and Eve unfolds. 2?3, the human ? a as of appetites" "bundle being literally nephesh on the earth. Unlike is clearly dependent adam in 1who
1943) of the Mystical (Pius XII Body of or her In this body, each member his keeps a and vital and The role. identity performs integral individual is always individual-in-community, and all
is simply created male and female by God's fiat, Adam the nephesh is formed out of the God dust of the ground, and comes to life when Genesis breathes God's own breath into him nephesh in Genesis 2 needs community a companion who is created from him my abstract bones" (2:23). The (2:7). This in the form of as "bone is not of the
It iswithin people are essential. No one is expendable. are nourished, that people this body and if one member of the body hurts, all suffer. The body is rational and well ordered, but, as in the Hebrew in its heart, always tradition, its intellect is centered reaching in love and compassion. And what the are to is in the Christians called be soul/psyche body, in the world. The Hebrew nephesh, the Greek anima of come in together the Mystical Body communal theological out
community but theological analogue of a God/Trinity the intimate community of flesh and blood human are given in God's who presence beings living resources by God to cultivate and care for as stewards
here
and the Latin psyche, the Christian doctrine and constitute a deeply
50 Mark that challenges the strong individualism theory and provides a fuller theological
G. Nixon is revoked carry this out, but this indenture every to its original owner 7 years and land is returned among the people of Israel every 50 years. are not inher Private property and self-interest in Judaism. In fact, the moral of ently problematic the rabbinic "Fable of the Yetzer-Ha-Rah (Evil is that elimination of self-interested hu Impulse)" man behavior would result in chaos and that human appetites, poses. whether good or bad, serve God's pur Smith endorses whereas Adam similar "invisible in driving pro and services, the strive to overcome the
anthropology of consumer
on human economic behavior than does perspective an exclusive focus on the imago dei and the doctrine of the Trinity. Having in Christianity and Judaism, we can now community ask: what is the individual's responsibility within the own a to This leads consideration of community? ership and dominion. reviewed the ideas of the individual and
Ownership and possessions
and the exercise of dominion over creation
However, the market's allowing conceptually to function hand" autonomously duction and distribution of goods
In Jewish and Christian the treat anthropologies, ment of the given resources available to the indi vidual and of the ownership, and use of acquisition material context sovereignty and the of humanity. "The earth is the Lord's, fullness the world, and they that dwell thereof; sover therein" (Tanakh, Psalm 24:1). Under God's deci consumption eignty, people necessarily make sions concerning the resources within their care, but they make these decisions as stewards of creation and a community. within is God-gi Human dominion ven (Gen. 1:27-28), but it is also God-constrained within munal Jewish With a biblical world-view obligations together with that focuses individual on com rights. goods of God's must always be understood over in the the earth and all
rabbis insist that people must evil impulse, to be consciously focused on the needs of others, beginning with their own household and sov to to all people, and respect God's extending ereignty Jacob Mishnah, one of from in managing Neusner wealth. that has (1999) argued the core of the Jewish Talmud, two economic only systematic the from other of being around 200
the
contains theories The was
antiquity,
Aristotle's.
Mishnah, dating first written recording God,

at the
according
same time
to Jewish
as Torah.
the C.E., the Jewish oral law that tradition, gave to Moses
Neusner has charac
terized contains livelihood
the
as
system "the problem of man's addressing a system of sanctification of a within question of the occupied by the rule." Absolute and resources is
economic
that
the Mishnah
as a base, a practical and largely non-theo Judaism developed to indi the relationships between logical approach in economic vidual and community affairs that retains a strong, communitarian focus. Within are situated within Judaism, Torah, relationship with
ethical perspectives on ownership personality nephesh and corporate
and posing the holy people" indeed definitive "critical, place in society under God's economy individual
alien to this
dominion
system.
over
land
and obligation ownership is always the history of God's which the people of Israel and not merely a body of religious is a natural and routine law. Personal consumption matter, needs what the but God has a right to limit it to meet of the poor. So tithes are paid to God as owner of the land and laws ensure that the poor will receive they need and be treated in a dignified way. and cultivation of Similarly, the purchase, ownership land are essential members otherwise of unable and even Israelite to make the voluntary indenture of are who family members ends meet is permitted to
Christian perspectives on ownership Christian takes more thought private ownership and the or dominion.
serious Charles
issue with exercise Avila of in his
individual
ownership rights in the early Christian Church study of ownership that for the establishes (Avila, 1983) early church fathers ownership was always communal, that people are not self-made but God-made, and that the initial endowments endowments, Ambrose, of Milan, property of each human the
including the 4th century church father and Bishop of private argues further that ownership is not a natural right,
being are communal St. world itself.
Satisfaction for Whom? for nature

common
Freedom for What? The Latin
51 called [one's own has wisely a loss for it connotes more is a diminution
has brought
.... Nature
forth
therefore
all things
is the
for all in
of
language
mother
right, usurpation of private appropriation] Officiis Ministrorum, St. John

private
common
[in the sense of private (Ambrose, De right
property] "private," than an increase. For all privation (Augustine, De Genesi, 11, 15).
1, 28).34 went
not
Chrysostom
ownership was
so far as to assert
even natural:
that
he recognized how private possessions and Moreover, in could cause social conflict and possession pride to the detriment of others, especially the poor: work On each one of us of the things which wars exist, hatreds, discords, possesses singly, strifes among human beings, tumults, dissensions, account
scandals, sins, injustices, and murders .... Let us
When
one attempts to possess himself of anything, it his own, then contention is introduced, as if nature herself were indignant (John Chryso to make stom, In Epistolam ad Timotheum, 12, 4).
This
the idea prevalent among clearly contravenes the 18th the "economic" of century, philosophers and Smith, that the right Locke, Hume Say, Hobbes, to property is a natural right. While Schumpeter traces the natural rights theory of property to (1980) the natural law tradition, Avila points out that the are the Roman stoic tradition of natural antecedents law rather communal
i 36
of private the possession which each possesses property property .... The privately, each necessarily becomes proud flesh of the rich person pushes out against the flesh of the poor ... (Augustine, Ennarratio in Psalmum CXXXI, 5).39 therefore abstain .... In for Augustine, the real danger was that people to in the misguided find try enjoy happiness ment (fru?)of temporal goods rather than merely using (utt) temporal goods as the means to find the way back But would to God, who alone is to be enjoyed (frui). In On Christian Teaching, Augustine, who viewed his own road to God as one that had been full of pitfalls and two kinds of between turns, distinguished wrong of love. Only love the first kind, can yield God, tem happiness. The second kind, love of anything
poral, even other people or our own lives, can never
from
than the church rights was as most welfare church in the
fathers, secondary consistent
for whom with
the
idea of individual
to the idea of natural
For dominion
the
property was It was
the idea of individual fathers, use and disposition of private a form of idolatry: of the
in the view private ownership, fathers of the Christian Church, that was tic' or 'idolatrous.' forgot before These the perfect his own followers: to God
'atheis
early social critics never that Jesus had set disjunction "You cannot
give and money 16:13)." (Luke and money Property was a "false god." Property an object of worship, had become enslaving both yourself the possessor and the dispossessed. The hoarding a that could not be of wealth had become passion an which satisfied, process, unending always demanded more after each new acquisition. Augustine ership and dominion idea of individual had a distinctive understanding that specifically addressed of own the
bring us happiness, but if used properly for the love of God and of one's neighbor, temporal things can still be ordered toward happiness with God. Augustine was goal as happiness, from the clear in viewing the human being's is far removed but this happiness individual satisfaction intended by con
sumer theory. Happiness for Augustine is the beatific vision of God and life is a journey in which the restless human heart, frequently and foolishly willing to squander life's energy on seeking satisfaction from temporal God: So things, can only find rest and happiness in
"enjoyment" and considered could result from private ownership or a diminishment burden of the private possessions
possessor:
called satisfaction, what Augustine saw He the clearly dangers that (fru?).
away to return 5:6): if we wish to the homeland where we can be happy we must use (uti) this world (1 Cor. 7:31), not enjoy it to in order 'the invisible attributes discern (frut), from our Lord (2 Cor.
in this mortal
life we
are like travelers
52 Mark are understood of God, which been made 1:20)' or, (Rom. derive eternal through what has to in other words, and spiritual value from corporeal
G. Nixon power of the will separately from any account of is true, good or beautiful."44 what Long adds that Milbank considers it a Christian heresy because Trinity of the loss of the orthodox to which doctrine of the
and temporal things. are to be enjoyed The things which (fru?), then, are the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is a that consists of them, which and the Trinity kind of single, supreme thing, shared by all who ... but is better enjoy {fru?) it perhaps the Trinity called the one God from whom, through whom, is (Rom. 11:36). and in whom everything in Augustine's of Thus, conception, consumption or not material satisfaction does bring happi things ness (fru?), and to view maximization of mere utility ? be irrational (utile) as the individual's goal would sheer folly. Further, only double charity, the love of God is the source of the use and love of neighbor, value of temporal, particularly material, things. All use value is therefore relational and never individ ualistic. St. Thomas dominion communal "whether his own," support understood similarly, Aquinas, as ownership for use (dominium utile) in a to the question In response way. a man to it is lawful for possess a thing as maintains that natural law does
according through, in, and for participation with God, who is not some bare divine unity defined in terms pri
the world
is created
marily of will, but is a gift who can be given and yet never alienated in his givenness. Once the doctrine of the Trinity new is reduced to bare divine 'secular' politics emerges tianity that makes capitalism possible.45 rests his argument politics: of all ensured unimpeded that men, enjoying property rights and even the rights of a sovereignty when simplicity, a from within Chris
Milbank "secular" first
on an analysis
that this
unrestricted, more when
exercising that 'cannot bind itself,' come closest to the imago in dei. Secondly, by abandoning participation a and between for 'covenantal bond' Being Unity God and men, it provided
as 'contractual'
a model
ones.
for human
interrelationships
Aquinas and the right of human beings to procure reasons. will three for First, people dispense goods take greater care for those things that they own ra ther than things held in common. Second, owner to contributes social order. there will be Third, ship over goods if ownership is clearly less contention with assigned. However, in a person's possession, ought to possess external
as common, them so to that, others
In short, the human of a market implementation came to as viewed God's be "invisible hand," system justly allocating to each what each deserves. The in this view becomes market the mechanism
dispensing God's grace, and at the free market's
free for
root
to the use of things holds that "man Aquinas as his own, but not things, respect
he is ready need." to commu their
is an anthropology that is characterized by what con in which calls Milbank's Milbank dominium, that form of dominion ception is a nearly mythicized of property rights but over ourselves, our labor, lordship our ability to work, land or the means of producing that we goods and services, and the endowments includes ownership individual have framework, to satisfy our own purposes on any particular understanding good and community. As we dominium Christian subdue tradition century have seen, Milbank's to acquire this free market and consume goods and services. In dominium is given to us rather than being based of the common not only human
to wit, in
nicate
In light of this Christian tradition, and based on his own detailed historical and theological analysis of in western the development of the idea of dominion thought, John Milbank, gian and social-critical imizing satisfaction, is a Christian heresy parative systems, Milbank's review D. Stephen theolo the contemporary that max theorist, contends in free market 1990). analyses (2000), terms, In a com
conceived (Milbank, Long
of theological
of economic characterizes free market
is congruent with traditions. God's command the earth was and as a matter understood theology in Christian
view of negative and the Hebrew in Genesis in the Hebrew until the 17th and stewardship to
position concerning it cele is a heresy because "capitalism capitalism: a formal, and manipulative, and extends brates
of responsibility
Satisfaction for Whom? to achieve the exercise of power and not merely It was clearly bound up with individual satisfaction. of a person's the rational and ethical management property. Milbank became will, pose asserts that in the 17th century, dominium account of the in an individualistic of its providential pur 7 notes that Milbank
Freedom for What? In the context
53
of a positive economics, analysts can simply bracket the ethical implications that this to test whether raises and proceed the theory can to help However, explain if the the observed behavior. predict or theory is viewed normatively idea that human a free market is well-being that operates or
"rooted
oblivious
to questions in the hands of God."
ideologically, best served without
'unrestricted eignty' and
which begins anthropology with human and individuals and yet persons as 'will' defines their individuality essentialistically,
or 'capacity' or 'impulse to self-preservation.'
'pure-power' emanations of a new
'absolute sover private property,' the 'active rights,' which compose are new the of all the object politics,
through a larger historical purpose must be chal The lenged from a Jewish or Christian perspective. a lack of of and time historical concept theory's is tradi for these purpose theologically significant
tions, because God has been must vation. answer It
it is precisely in historical time that encountered and that human beings God's call in working out their sal
human
that compels experience to raise the beings questions eschatological about what constitutes human destiny both indi
is historical
But
if the consumer the ultimate
is little room comes
for God.
is sovereign to this extent, there If individual satisfaction be
and socially. Specifically, in life can what vidually transcend the historical reality of death? Or how can the human and sustain toward and community, advance society its ultimate fulfillment earth of (Isa. 65:17, and in global solidarity, all of creation in "a new Rev. heaven
goal, there is little room for Both God and community become community. as not as useful the but context, secondary, perhaps the source and motivating factors for what consumer
a new
in secular terms as the indi theory now conceives in life vidual's of satisfaction project achieving con exercise the of the dominium and through sumption of whatever dominium can procure.
anticipation already come the end Christianity ways, they individual's of
or in 21:1)" the Kingdom of God which has to is and be fulfilled at (Mk. 1:15)
(Mt. 25:34). While Judaism and address in different these questions in basic agreement conclude that each
time
The destructive character of the eschatology inherent in ahistorical consumer satisfaction As we

time in
historical life and death has meaning that history has a purpose and a hopeful ful In the Christian not fillment. is death conception, the end. Instead, faith frees a person to overcome and it through of Christ. as a disciple and neighbor In Judaism, the recognition that the is part of a larger historical individual community fosters the transcendence of death through faith in solidarity with past and future fulness to Torah love of God
One consequence of the consumer
have
seen,
there
theory,
is no
where
concept
of historical
choice
consumer
consumer
and
ables
the effects
such as
of any
or
changes
consumer
in economic
income are
vari
the
prices
orized Miller tion: without
as occurring in abstract, time. As logical time relative to consump (2004) describes "the future is merely the present continued
generations. theory's
not simply ces end, and end here means sation but telos or goal ...." from Consumption moment no to moment embodies future prospect except human The purpose is implicit theory simple: to maximize con to income individual satisfaction, subject and this, in economic straints, in each moment; also determines the overall theory, economy's in consumer because production it is consumer priorities. sovereignty that more of the same.
ahistorical
death, because death is only in historical relevant time. And yet the reality of a source of dread and fear for any real death becomes human J?rgen person being whose Moltmann to desire is consumption. preoccupation describes the situation (1996) of death that leads the the and overcome immortality situation. He writes:
questions theory does not consider
concept of human
of
is that consumption are not raised. destiny
such The
cogently.
It is the awareness
direction, motivates
frailty of the human
54 Mark It is the awareness of death which first creates fear
G. Nixon ments. these more the same time, however, those who lack resource endowments face death in an even At dire way. through Again Moltmann: violence
an everyday
for life, the fear of not getting one's fair share, of not having enough from life, the fear that life will be cut short. This leads to a craving for life and to senses death in the midst greed. The person who to live, and if not to be already of life wants immortal, at least to be invulnerable while living. People want to be healthy, This like this look like them. at the immortal ...They want and immortal. gods to be rich, and
death
the
the indirect
countries is
issuing
affair
from
....
wealthy
Because
in the wealthy countries and richer classes are more valuable of society personal possessions than a shared life, violent death in Africa and Latin and in India is going to claim more and
victims.
invulnerable
America
more
to an anthropo view, leads, in Moltmann's centricism that reduces human nature and destroys both community and creation: The
nature tion
Moltmann
the more
might have changed the phrase "personal to "personal satisfaction' in keeping with possessions"
current view of consumer theory. Posses
modern
... ...does or
separation
between neither
between
covenant to human
person
and nature,
and
crea nor
justice
to the community of creation. It is an expression of the anthropocentricism of the modern world, anthropocentricism It also political leads to the destructive creation of of nature. sinful
sions, after all, have some use value; but in the eco seat to a nomic take a back theory possessions or the personal satisfaction, subjective enjoyment sense of well being that the possessions afford a person. So we can see in this theory of consumer choice a certain existential power which may for some offer
and economic, but in fact destroy nerability human violence. petuating "structural political unjust domination beings, human beings tures, sin" includes and because of
structures, vul that aim to overcome community by per term The modern
hope to transcend death through living well but which itself constitutes death for others. It is no surprise that free markets are defended most strongly by those who are well Can off. this denial of death, and the resulting human in the public sphere of and of violence loss humanity the free market be compensated by a countervailing cultural of institutions and public sphere religious and mitigate the an escha effects by proclaiming economy's tology of hope? This is at least part of how Michael Novak faith addressing the (1983) sees the Christian prospect harsh moral indifference of what is otherwise in his view. beneficial this hope materially and live system is to be realized, those who have well off must resist the economic lives that are to some We cannot the fulfillment and Mammon, of which in which extent serve free market a strongly But if it and are ideology that redeem the human
those: structures are used to which enforce are the
economic they human
over human beings the exploitation of human by beings and the alienation of human beings, one another. Within not these directly of laws struc and and is practiced
from violence
personally
but
prices. Through is legitimated. The duced result
by way indirectly structures of this kind,
violence
is that the expectation of salvation is re to religious and moral and this personality of doom for the rest
contradictory. for working
existentially both God by human commu
the whole
"a deadly declaration of the world." Consumer
constitutes
theory caters to this fear of vulner to be God's and desire equal. In its time ability of salvation as the lessness and its implicit view of satisfaction, it implies that present maximization to A way is possible. satisfaction short of God to itself for those transcend death appears present who are blessed with substantial resource endow
community nity except as amarketplace aim to maximize individual attempt find themselves to make
ignores all participants Those who
satisfaction.
soon their peace with Mammon, ? either by absorption overwhelmed satisfactions that the market
in the transient material with
affords or by the struggle to achieve that satisfaction, that could result in the fear of the real poverty event of failure.
Satisfaction for Whom? Thesis 4: There economic nomic to develop is an opportunity as a basis for dialogue theory a richer on eco
Freedom for What? 55 economic

research. To
theory
take
as subjects
one example,
for further
how
economic
could con
insights from Juda theological ism and Christianity. There is also an opportunity in theology based on a deeper for new directions reflection on economic theory and practice.
issues using
sumer vidual
theory modify as a communal
its axioms creature
to view and what
the indi would be
As choice
economics, positive and the free market constitute merely certain phenomena be useful
the theory economic a model of
of consumer system that it that helps to behavior
new the effects of doing so?What insights might be if the the individual not forthcoming theory posited as an autonomous decision maker acting in a purely to maximize his or her own way consequentialist the com satisfaction, but rather as an agent within is who the of munity guided by particular way in the community's embodied tradition. knowing new understandings and interesting of Significant cific the theory of the firm have resulted from consideration of institutional factors, the spe such as
undergirds explain and may
economic
in guiding economic activity. But as we have a the has also become seen, theory a normative for individual behavior, prescription political ideology and even a kind of secular theol with harmful repercussions. ogy potentially In this concluding I will examine the section, as for economics and disci implications theology plines issues point in the hope that renewed efforts to address the that are raised here from a theoretical view can lead debate to both a more informed and and a greater awareness are concerned. for all who and self
organizational factors would the consumer? Turning constitute standpoint
structure, contracts and agency. What be analogous to these for the theory of to the second an of what would question economic theoretical the most perspective, for the theory to for and The
from concern
acceptable a theological is a need
pressing a view mulate not
of the individual
thoughtful understanding
simply second requirement would be to move the beyond ethic of maximizing satisfaction as consequentialist
the individual
in community on his or her own.
Implications for Given theory how
economic theory
the strongly critical evaluation of consumer in this paper, based largely on challenges to its
we might well ask two questions. First,
to consider a broader range of ethical the objective alternatives. One of these, a utilitarian framework, is already deeply in welfare embedded economics and additional works several Kant's received could be deontological considered. or rules-based The Torah frame provides include already Rawls would which as a
assumptions,
might
consumer
theory
benefit
from
the
such frameworks categorical
and others would
here? Second, what theological analysis presented an acceptable constitute would economic theory of the consumer from a theological perspective? regard question, perhaps first benefit is in entertaining respectful challenges based on a different way of thinking about the a different The world, per episteme. orthogonal spective and findings from a theological approach to anthropology, community, and human goods, destiny mists and economic on of to reflect pects lenges
these
With
to the first
the
which has imperative, elaboration philosophical by John in his book A Theory of Justice (1971). It to see how virtue ethics, also be interesting received strong philosophical be as well modeled The development, might criterion in economic most
has
as theo
logical decision
of created ownership econo should move like business firms
and probably to determine porate

sumer
third, theory. be difficult, requirement would how economic theory could incor rather than logical, time in con historical,
choice.
institutions
thoughtful
new
their own way of viewing these as human and experience. Regular debate chal and sharpens perspectives ways of thinking by introducing
it would be specific requirements, to recognize the theoretical salutary for economists as well as ethical objections to consumer theory Beyond in this paper, and refrain presented consumer from championing theory's assumptions as a normative ethical basis for economic and social policy. such as those
these
accepted
perspectives.
More heightened
the focus has specifically, theological the salience of certain aspects of the
Mark 56 theological consideration of economic theory a critique of the there are also serious practical and here has been
G. Nixon lead to confusion and a breakdown in dialogue. To and this unexplored
Implications for Although economic theoretical The God
the focus theory,
date, this level is still relatively lack of informed attention is of serious theological concern. as If theology is to fulfill its responsibility in the economic exegete of existence sphere, itmust understand that sphere at all levels. This will require about that theologians become more knowledgeable other social disciplines, understand practical scholars and engage application, to discern points of from those disciplines as as ways, if pos and well agreement disagreement sible, to bridge the differences. their theory and in dialogue with
in for theology. James Cone, challenges the the has described of Oppressed (1997), as an "exegete and exis of Scripture theologian are are more areas and few of there life that tence,"
in our existence than economic activity.
pervasive
Yet
the quality of theological exegesis on economic to be desired. Perhaps the greatest issues leaves much to find opportunities is for the theologian difficulty to hear thoughtful leading economic informed It several is reflection and understand who the are people economic experience involved actively and participating the exegesis lived of in in
activity and reality based. to also important and comment on
enterprises so that
Summary The
and
conclusions
is well economic Christian theory of the consumer grew out of the foundational works of theology with
exercise economic
theological affairs at
treat if not most, levels. Many, theological at ments of economic the level consider activity benefits economic systems (e.g., social and economic of market-based Michael Novak's versus planned (1983) commentaries to use economies), At this level, typology.58 address such topics as
John Locke and Adam Smith in the 18th century, and this syncretism makes the theory of consumer as a secular choice, ideology, particularly pernicious and still for Christians. While Christianity provided shares the concepts of creation, individual freedom, in the and rational choice, their specific meanings in secular doctrine oppose Christian understandings idea that political and important ways. Novak's can in the market be moral deficiencies system of ameliorated the powers through countervailing democratic institutions independent strong government only works of and cultural and religious is sufficiently if government and religion the market plays a
theological
on a national or in income and wealth disparities of and the degrading poverty injustice global scale, and the inability of the poor and unfair practices, to provide for themselves adequately marginalized and ond on economic their families. Papal encyclicals are at The sec level. focused this subjects typically level includes the the ethical practices implications of par ticular economic
(e.g., private property, or particular economic social welfare and programs, programs (e.g., policies Social Security). These often have as their Medicaid, primary concern how well these policies or practices taxation, just wage) and for particular seg provide for society generally or are deprived of participa ments that participate tion in the economy. this paper is one The third level of analysis ? focuses on relationships between theology example level. At this and economic thought at a theoretical level, the analysis applies what as a method of correlation characterized concepts divine." denoting Works the human Paul Tillich (1951) has "between
is ade condition role. Neither prophetic satisfied quately today. in the secular ideology of the The elements consumer and Christian that oppose both Jewish and community, sovereignty that are conceived dominion terms) (in Milbank's as the pure power to pursue individual satisfaction, and an eschatology that equates salvation with of
optimized moment-to-moment consumption. The
anthropologies is destructive
include
a radical
individualism
that
grace granted
of -
the consumer's in the world. a form Christians
endowments Milbank's
is taken comment
for for that
as is the lack of resource
endowments
many people this constitutes so, not subscribe
the and those denoting at this level reveal the fundamental
only to the or
and if of heresy has merit, but all who and Jews, economic are also doctrine in a way in significant
secular
similarities that can enable dialogue at the other two that can differences levels as well as the fundamental
religious moral peril.
ideological
Satisfaction for Whom? I conclude with the questions from the title of this should there be satisfaction and to seek freedom? Consumer theory individual
Freedom for What? 57 4

utility
Such an approach would

and preferences in some
require the weighting

way (e.g., by voting).
of as
that
paper. For whom what end do we responds consumer goods
Kenneth
the ence no and
Arrow
(1951),
in what
has become
basic or her criteria own
known
that prefer
is for the simply: satisfaction with the resources to commit in obtaining is the individual's and services, and freedom
"impossibility
theorem,"
demonstrated
that meet several orderings one assert his individual will ignore
(e.g., preferences
that material satisfaction. As we ability to pursue the have seen, this is an appropriate answer within a context of but it is still theo positive economics even context. It is even in that retically problematic - even more problematic if adopted as destructive a social and political ideology. Jewish can individual The and Christian answer come is that the and achieve only since all resources satisfaction within
that every else's, everyone of preferences preference transitivity never in a situation be assured that members among and (i.e., at least three preference be the
order individual's can is satisfied) has at least two
as would
typically
options case in practice).
to decide
Sen (1969) has demonstrated

assumption ditions, choice" it is relaxed is and to under possible or rule function
that, if Arrow's
other construct
transitivity
con "social
constraining a at least collective
for making
decisions
community, is always stewardship for social benefit ownership with particular concern for the poor. In the words of is for me? Rabbi Hillel: "If I am not for myself, who If I am for myself now, when? alone satis choice in the journey to God in whom In the words of Augustine: faction is possible. "You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless, O God, until it rests in you. Understanding these differences should concerning clarify why disagreements social policies can be so difficult to lead to resolution. There ences is also hope through the level of economic alone, what good am I?And if not is the exercise of freedom And,
from God
that is consistent with Sen's Nobel

both ory, progress which
lecture
and holds
satisfying individual preferences. (Sen 1999) provides a review of

issues as a in social choice program the for research
remaining promise
moving beyond a utilitarian understanding of individual and social well being. This, however, is well beyond is the focus of this the theory of the consumer, which
paper.
6 7 8 9
that
Sen (1995), p. 15. Blaug (1978), p. 374. (1994), p. 202. A recent empirical
is described
See
also Fine
(2002), pp.
135-137.
help to economic and
Vickers Ibid.
Sen (1977), pp. 340-43.

tends to confirm Sen's
study
in
that efforts to bridge these differ and change at deeper understanding theory and theological doctrine inwhich all people are free and
observation
Samuelson
Ibid. p.
(2005).
344. Sen's of proposed inclusion as a source in of economic commit community
will yet lead to aworld have what they need to live in a satisfying way.
decision-making
ment
concept
has interesting
of a tradition
parallels with Maclntyre's

as providing not only the
(1988)
context
within Notes Schumpeter (1980), p. 122. 2 (1978), p. 339. The Blaug

traced, together with some of its
which
reason is exercised but the rules for what

itself, especially regarding ethical
constitutes and moral
rationality decision-making.
Thurow
who subjects
(1983), p. xviii.
consumer analysis and choice
See also Hodgson

theory that to "in a
(2001)
detailed
development
theological
is also
elements,
philosophical
concludes
its concep
tually prior form, CCT

mulates a normative insofar social as 3-4) of
[consumer
of
choice
theory] for
by Simons
For does a person
(1995), pp. 34-35.

example, make what implicit an between consumption enjoyable vacation tradeoff and
choice
rational behaviour" (pp. theory it is subsumed in an theory overarching welfare economics the that views
his or her own

Hawaii, but not given zero)
life when
a measurable that the
boarding
risk will
an airplane flight
(presumably crash. very Similarly, what
to
low
general equilibrium
economy as
delivered by a perfectly
optimal.
competitive
12
14
socially
plane
Nelson
Ibid. Ibid. p.
(2001), p. xv.
p. xxv. 23.
utility
the of
tradeoffs will
spent in the
the individual make with

pursuit of and a career ego and
regard to
its benefits versus
time income,
self-realization,
gratification
the benefits
volunteer
of time spent at home with

service?
family or in
community
15 Nelson (1991), p. xxi; Nelson (1998), p. 2-4. 16 Britton and Sedgwick (2003), pp. 66-67. 17 Ibid. pp. 94-96.
Mark 58
Unless references and
G. Nixon St. Thomas Aquinas (1947), Summa Theologica, II:
otherwise
indicated,
biblical
quotations dard Version (1989). 19 Simons (1995), p. 71. 20 Santelli Jr. et al. (2002), p. 123. 21 Beabout et al. (2002), p. 81. 22 (1979), pp. 105-106. Cited Wojtyla
et al., p. 81. 23 Beabout et al., p. 10.
are from
the Holy
Bible, New Revised Stan
II, q. 66, a.2, corp. 44 Long (2000), p. 258. 45 Ibid. p. 259. 46 Milbank (1990), p. 15.
47 Ibid. Ibid. 48 p. p. 13. 14.
in Beabout
49
view which
Miller
of what
(2004), p. 131. Miller's

he characterizes can status happen quo, as
comment
relates to a
time "in inter of
John Paul II, Centesimus Annus (34). This papal en cyclical is the latest of several encyclials (e.g., Leo XIII 1891, 1897; Pius XI, 1931; John Paul II, 1981, 1987) the Catholic Church's that have sought to define
understanding and tems' rights of the human being's role, responsibilities emphasizing dignity that the sys as eco a in economic natures the communal systems, and always the
anything of " but the
evolutionary for a serious except anything is aptly but applied the
ruption salvation,
50 51 52 53 54 55 6
the phrase
coming as well. here
Moltmann Ibid. p. 92. Ibid. p. 95. Ibid. p. 92. Ibid. p. 95. Novak
(1996), p. 93.
communal in systems
person's
participant nomic
relationships
25
create.
Ibid. (41)
Biblical quotations indicated as "Tanakh" are from the Jewish Bible, Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation (Jewish Publication Society, 1988). 27 von Rad (1962), p. 153. 28 Ibid. John Paul II (1987). Also focused on anthropologi cal elements from Genesis 2 as establishing the practical in described the dominion conditions for exercising Genesis 1. See his Encyclical Letter, Solicitudo Rei Socia lis (29-30). 30 Hoff (accessed May 3, 2005). See Bullinger (1990). Ibid. (38), quoting the Epistle toDiognetus (6). 2 and Gordon (1992), p. 38. The conclu Ohrenstein sion of the Fable reads:
At In last it dawned divine forces vehicles tempter of ? a truth a profound
(1983), pp. 57-58. See Sen (1987) and Vickers (1997) for a discussion issues involved and approaches to of the philosophical
address them.
57 58 59 60
Cone Novak TiUich Danby
(1997), p. 8. (1983), pp. 240-241. (1951), p. 60. (1933), The Mishnah, Tractate Pirke Avoth
6 (J,
14)
St. Augustine (1960), Confessions, 1.1.
Acknowledgements I am indebted
ze of Fordham Marquette runsel of of
to Michael
University, and
E. Lee and Bradford E. Hin

Christine John Weber of Business helpful Firer Hinze Tenb the Uni on an of and Ann at
University, the Mendoza Notre Dame
scheme
School for
Vicious Are The
sound; principle as avarice and passion, progress live to the world tempt, so
greed need. doth let no one dare
versity
comments
initial draft of this paper. Of

for any shortcomings in of this mine.
course,
paper and
the responsibility
for the opinions
must
Deprive
major
the Yetzer-Ha-Rah
glare.
(evil
impulse)
of his
expressed
it is entirely
Neusner Quoted Ibid. Avila

Ibid.
(1999), p. 244. in Avila (1983), p. 139. (1983), p. 72.
References Arrow, K.: 1951, Social Choice and Individual Values (John and Sons, New York). Wiley C: 1983, Ownership: Early Christian Teaching (Orbis Avila, Books, Maryknoll, NY). 1997, Economics: Baum?l, W. J. and A. S. Blinder: Fort 7 and Worth, TX). (Dryden Press, Policy Principles et al: 2002, Beyond Self-interest: A Beabout, G. R.,
Personalist Lanham, Approach MD). toHuman Action (Lexington Books,
p.
140.
Quoted Ibid.
and
in Avila
(1983), p. 139. (1997), On Christian Teaching, Book
St. Augustine 41
I, 7, 39-43.
42
Ibid. Book Milbank
I, 9-10. (1990), pp. 12-13.
Satisfaction for Whom? Becker, G.: 1971, The Economics ofDiscrimination

University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
Freedom for What? March,
59
2 (The of
Becker,
G.:
1975, Human
Capital
(The University
Chicago Press, Chicago). Becker, G.: 1981, A Treatise on the Family (Harvard University Press, Cambridge). Becker, G. and K. Murphy: 2001, Social Economics:Market Behavior in a Social Environment (Belknap Press, Cambridge). Blaug, M.: 1978, Economic Theory inRetrospect 3 (Cam bridge University Press, Cambridge). Britton, A. and P. Sedgwick: 2003, Economic Theory and Christian Belief (Peter Lang AG, European Academic
Publishers, Bern, Switzerland).
J. G. and H. A. Simon: 1958, Organizations (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York). McMurtry, J.: 1999, Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market As An Ethical System (Garamond and Kumarian Press,
Toronto andWestport CT). Milbank, J.: 1990, Theology and Social Theory, Beyond Secular Reason (Basil Blackwell, Cambridge). Miller, V.J.: 2004, Consuming Religion, Christian Faith and
Practice in a Consumer Culture (The Continuum Inter
national Publishing Group, Inc, New York). Moltmann, J.: 1996, The Coming of God, Translated by Kohl (Fortress Press, Minneapolis). Margaret
Nelson, R. H.: 1991, Reaching for Heaven on Earth: The
TheologicalMeaning
Publishers, Inc,
ofEconomics (Rowman & Littlefield

MD).
in the Old Bullinger, E. W.: 1990, 'The Use of Nephesh in The Companion Bible (Kregel Publica Testament,' tions, Grand Rapids, MI). J.: 1997, God of the Oppressed, Revised Edition (Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NY). Danby, H. (ed.): 1933, The Mishnah (Oxford University Cone,
Press, Oxford).
Savage,
R. H.: 'Economic Religion Versus Nelson, 1998, Christian Values,' Journal of Markets & Morality, 1(2).
Nelson, R. H.: 2001, Economics as Religion: From Sam
Fine, B.: 2002, The World of Consumption

London).
2 (Routledge,
uelson to Chicago and Beyond (The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA). 'The Transformation of Economic Neusner, J.: 1999, in in Classical Neusner Thinking (ed.), J. Judaism', Religious Belief and Economic Behavior (Scholars Press,
Atlanta).
Individualistic 1955, 'Cardinal Welfare, Harsanyi, J. C: and of Ethics, Interpersonal Comparisons Utility', The Political 309-321. Economy 63(4), Journal of
Henderson, J. M. and R. E. Quandt: 1980, Microeconomic
Nicholson, W.: 1978, Microeconomic Theory, Basic Principles and Extensions 2 (The Dryden Press, Hinsdale, Illi
nois).
Theory: A Mathematical Approach

Book Company, New York)..
(McGraw-Hill
Hodgson,
B.: 1983, 'Economic Science and Ethical The Problem of Teleology', Journal of Neutrality: Business Ethics 2(4), 237-253.
B.: 2001, Economics as Moral Science (Springer
1983, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (Random House, New York). Novak, M.: 1993, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (The Free Press, New York). Novak, R. A. and B. Gordon: 1992, Economic in Talmudic Literature: Rabbinic Thought in the Modern Economics (EJ. Brill, Leiden). Light of Pius XI: 1931, 'Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno\ Pius XII: 1943, 'Encyclical Mystici Corporis\ Rawls, J.: 1971, A Theory of Justice (Belknap Press, Ohrenstein, Analysis Cambridge, MA).
Robinson, Israel, H. Facet W.: Books 1964, Corporate Series Biblical in Ancient Personality ? 11 (Fortress Press,
M.:
Hodgson,
Verlag, Berlin). Hoff, T.: No date, "Nephesh and the Fulfillment

ceives as writings.htm. Psyche," http://www.drhoff.com/Writings/ Accessed 3, 2005. May
ItRe
Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version: 1989

University Press, Oxford).
(Oxford
Jewish Publication Society: 1988, Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation (The Jewish Pub lication Society, Philadelphia). John Paul II: 1981, 'Encyclical Laborem Exercens\ John Paul II: 1987, 'Encyclical Solicitudo Rei Socialis\ John Paul II: 1991, 'Encyclical Centesimus Annus\
Koutsoyiannis, (St Martin's A.: Press, 1979, New Modern York). Microeconomics 2
Philadelphia).
Samuelson, Review 497. Samuelson, P. A.: 1947, Foundations of Economic Analysis L.: 2005, '"Foundations of Economic of Human Literature Sociality: 43, A Essay', Jo urnal 488?
(Harvard University
Santelli, A. J., Jr., Economy (Lexington
Press, Cambridge, MA).

The Free Person MD). and the Free Books, Lanham,
et al.: 2002,
Leo XIII: Leo XIII: Long, D. Market Maclntyre,

(University
1891 'Encyclical Rerum Novarum . 1897: 'Encyclical Divinum Illua". S.: 2000, Divine Economy: Theology and the (Routledge, New York). A.: 1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality?
of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN).
Schumpeter, J. A.: Elizabeth Boody

Press: Sen, A.: New 1973, York).
1980, History Schumpeter

and
of Economic Analysis, in (ed.) (Oxford University

of Preference',
'Behavior
the Concept
Econ?mica, New
Series 40(159),
241-259.
60 Mark
A.: Rational Choice and
G. Nixon Thurow, L. O: 1983, Dangerous Currents: The State of Economics (Random House, New York). Tillich, P.: 1951, Systematic Theology, Volume One: Reason and Revelation, Being and God (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago). Vickers, D.: 1994, Economics and theAntagonism of Time: Time, Uncertainty, and Choice in Economic Theory (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan).
Vickers, D.: 1997, Economics and Ethics: An Introduction to
Sen,
1969,
'Quasi-Transitivity,
Collective 381-393. Sen, A.:

Behavioral
Decisions', 1977,
Review ofEconomic Studies 36(3), Fools: A

of Economic
'Rational
Critique
Theory',
of
the
Foundations
Philos
ophy and Public Affairs 6(4), 317-344. Sen, A.: 1987, On Ethics and Economics (Basil Blackwell Inc, New York).
Sen, A.: 1995, 'Rationality and Social Choice', American
Economic Review 85(1), 1-24. Sen, A.: 1999, 'The Possibility of Social Choice', American Economic Review 89(3), 349-378. Simon, H. A.:
Decision-Making
Theory,
Westport, Varian, H.
Institutions,
Connecticut). R.: 1990,
and Policy
(Praeger Publishers,
A Modern
Intermediate
Microeconomics:
1976, Administrative Behavior: A Study of

Processes in Administrative Organization,
3rd edn, Expanded

Free Press, New
with
a New
Introduction
(The
Approach 2 (WW. Norton & Company, New York). von Rad, G.: 1962, Old Testament Theology, Volume 1: The Theology of Israel'sHistorical Traditions, Translated by D.M.G. Wojtyla, K.: Stalker (Harper & Row, New York). 1979, The Acting Person, Translated by A.
York).
Simons, R. G.: 1995, Competing Gospels: Public Theology and Economic Theory (E.J. Dwyer, Alexandria, NSW,
Australia).
Potocki. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands). Wojtyla, K.: 1993, 'The Person: Subject and Commu
nity,' in Person and Community: Selected Essays,
St. Augustine:
with an
1997, On Christian Teaching, Translated

and Notes by R.P.H. Green
Introduction
(Oxford University Press, Oxford). St. Augustine: 1960, The Confessions of Saint Augustine, an Introduction andNotes by John K. with Translated, Ryan (Doubleday, New York). St. Thomas Translated
Province,
Translated by Theresa New York).
Sandok, O.
S. M.
(Peter Lang,
Mark
G. Nixon
1947, Aquinas: by Fathers of

Benziger Bros,
The
the English
edition,
Summa Theological, Dominican

http://www.cce Accessed May 4,
Department of Theology, Fordham University, 441 E. Fordham Road, Bronx, NY, E-mail: 10458-9993,
U.S.A.
l.org/a/aquinas/summa/home/html,
2005.
mnixon@fordham.edu

Satisfaction For Whom - Freedom For What

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satisfaction For Whom - Freedom For What

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Satisfaction for Whom? Freedom for What?

Journal of Business Ethics (2007) 70:39-60 DOI 10.1007A10551-006-9078-5

Satisfaction forWhom? forWhat?

Freedom and the Economic

ABSTRACT. which individual non, has assumes

economic individual to pursue an important

theory satisfaction satisfaction

consumer, goal its sine and qua in

destiny (or "eschatology" ogy). The principal conclusion

in theological terminol is that consumer theory,

ism, which has become United States [Nelson:

of human beings. The maxi

satisfaction political issues more

economists social theory economic

explicit alternatives give greater

individual, Milbank, theology, utility

"anthropology," of the consumer with the

the basis of different

including ness Institute.

G. Nixon hours at work and an almost frantic of

rarely that inform

pursuit that is viewed

theories, and polit rooted in the con cultural lend formation to

of less than $1 per day.

pursue happiness that they make.

but outside Each

are also of particular advocate

set of priorities of wealth and policies

and theological theory four theses

The American to grow

affordability savings for retirement.

Satisfaction for Whom? century

tialist decision immediate, and destiny amoral in

variously capitalism; constitutes neoclassical theory a purely Thesis

is problematic economic 2: Consumer

making and needs,

and services One

utility of commodities consumption In Samuelson's (1947) con goal.

The problematic anthropological assumptions of consumer theory Consumer necessary

the following axioms that

for example, theory of altruism utility function,"

and labor, demand. But mand

in developing of firms that would thereby create

employment a vicious It becomes

for the opportunities The neoclassical cycle.

consumer is endowed with

owned resources that

concerning time (e.g., not

the consumption the degradation

(e.g., of fossil fuels) on a later are of the environment) alloca today

in the theory. The consumer's for consumption endowments

in the form of a probability

is a societies, that enables system

(Vickers static only analysis. It can be demonstrated conditions are met,

independent 1994). The

logically that if these five then goods and services will be

44 Mark Some theoretical economic issues with consumer theory

In the context consumer hypotheses framework dictions

for making about consumer

possible or failures. However, imperfections in problems using it this way.

any there are several

products, and levels of consumer through responses useful information

and that deci