“Money and faith,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, April 20 - 26, 2012, 17.

MONEY AND FAITH

We have heard about Tim Tebow and the merging of faith and sports: is he going too far? Did Jesus really help him win games for the Broncos? What will happen now in New York?

We have heard about the religious views politicians and the merging of faith and politics: should we care if Romney is a Mormon? Should we worry about a Catholic President being beholden to the Pope rather than the Constitution?

But we are not hearing much about faith and business: isn’t the marketplace secular? Do you care if your partner is Mormon or Catholic? What if she’s a Muslim or Jewish?

Morality provides the foundation for the marketplace, from small exchanges to major contracts. When you buy a 500-page packet at OfficeMax, you assume that indeed there are 500 pages inside. Would you waste your time counting them?

Why wouldn’t the company put only 490 pages in each packet and increase its profits by 2%? There is basic trust associated with these kinds of transactions, a moral code we all abide by: the golden rule.

When we follow it, do onto others as you would have them do onto you, we save ourselves the trouble of counting 500 pages. Trust and integrity also mean honesty, consideration, accountability, and transparency, values you find in mission statements that large corporation post on their websites. Moral conduct also equates to efficiency.

But is this trust shared across religious beliefs? Are Mormons as trustworthy as Muslims? What about the Jews who have been maligned for centuries? Is one’s religion a moral indicator of one’s business behavior? Does religion teach these values?

The German sociologist Max Weber had the following observation regarding American salesmanship. He suggested coming to a new town on Saturday, going to church with the locals on Sunday, and then making sales-calls on Monday. Gain their trust through religion before attempting to sell anything.

This advice is still followed in some mega-churches where congregants are encouraged to do business with each other, and frequent each other’s places of business. Is there a necessary connection between worship and moral conduct?

Some argue that because God sees all, even if you get away being immoral in this life, you’ll be punished in the afterlife. For many this idea of heaven and hell keeps them within moral boundaries in the here and now.

What if your faith doesn’t include the idea of an afterlife? Does that mean you necessarily don’t care about morality? Plenty secular businesspeople are moral while being nonbelievers. The marketplace is irreligious. But aren’t our worldly activities an expression of our inner core of beliefs? Isn’t there a direct line between one’s honesty and integrity and one’s conduct in the marketplace?

It’s odd, then, that we demand to know a candidate’s detailed belief system and relation to God—“born again” comes up as a significant statement of faith—when we are willing to ignore it in the marketplace. Do you demand prayer before signing a contract? Do you expect God’s blessing to succeed in business?

What’s going on in the marketplace, as Adam Smith already reminded us centuries ago, is a tacit commitment to moral behavior: we assume everyone is honest, until proven otherwise; it’s a more efficient system than suspecting everyone (and counting 500 sheets of paper).

So, are we moral in the name of efficiency? Is efficiency as powerful as the watchful eye of the Impartial Spectator to keep you honest in the marketplace? Perhaps it’s also common sense: you are bound to encounter the same people over and over again; they’ll remember if you cheated them in the past.

So, efficiency plus memory equals moral behavior in the marketplace. Add to it cost and convenience—do you want to do a background check on everyone?—and you are getting closer to the recipe for marketplace morality. Is religion then necessary?

If by religion we mean moral sentiments, then religion in general and religious mandates and institutions in particular are helpful. But when religion divides, it may interfere in the marketplace.

I recall growing up in Israel when our family business had close to half of its clients Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. The Intifada was a financial nuisance, not a political matter. Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, all they wanted was to make a living and support their families—hostilities ruin the marketplace, they all admitted.

We all count on the marketplace to even the odds—when it isn’t manipulated by Wall Street—among moral businesspeople who are trying to prosper under conditions of personal liberty and equal opportunity.

One’s faith is a private matter we can neither buy nor sell. Let’s keep it then out of the marketplace!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Community and family at heart of civil society,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, September 23-29, 2011, 23.

IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY

            Having watched the first Republican panel of presidential contenders, it seemed that an evil villain is running this country. They might have been talking about Syria’s Assad who “must go,” as they chanted about our own President. What happened to civility in public discourse?

            Think about growing up in a so-called typical American family. As a baby, you contribute nothing to the household, while your parents work to feed you, invest in you because they chose to have you. Will they have a good return on their investment? Are they taking some risks? Will you repay them when they become old?

            The notion that a civil society is based on some basic principles of mutual support gets lost all too often in public debates about budgets or entitlements. Even religious advocates of family values forget their own rhetoric when thinking about financial matters. What causes such amnesia? Why has the financial been divorced from the moral?

            Adam Smith advocated a moral setting in our chosen communities, so that our commitment to our extended family would be practiced in our villages. As early as 1759 he posed the idea of Impartial Spectator that would observe our social and moral behavior, like a divine guide. Some think he talked about God. The Impartial Spectator ensured that our sentiments extended into the commons, the public sphere.

            It’s only much later in 1776 that the same Adam Smith focused on the marketplace and coined the term Invisible Hand to describe how markets could operate freely with equal access to anyone who wanted to engage with others. The Invisible Hand could be invisible because an Impartial Spectator was already in place. When you build trust, as should be the case in family settings, business exchanges can be honest.

            It’s with this in mind that Karl Marx a hundred years later proclaimed an old Christian principle found in Matthew 25: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Whether under religious tutelage or that of political economists, it’s clear that to have a functioning marketplace we all need to be in it together, whether in Colorado Springs or the United States. A strong moral fabric is the foundation of business networks.

So, when our mayor (or any councilmember) wants to be “off the record” or not have public access to his Task Force meetings about Memorial hospital, he forgets that we care for and respect each other as if we are members of one extended family (without power-plays, guilt trips, or personal agendas). He may be the first among equals, but he still remains a citizen with one vote and one heart. The same goes for all politicians, Republican and Democrats alike.  

            Legitimate disagreements over ideas or policies do arise. In order to tease out the differences, we must ask for the principles that guided them, rather than the people who happen to advocate them. For example, when we discuss what part of the collective pie Defense budget or Social Security deserve to retain, we assume the pie is of a fixed size. If less revenue is collected through taxes and fees, the pie will shrink; if more, it’ll grow. As the Super Congressional Committee commences its deliberations, this issue should be addressed first, rather than some pledge about no tax increases.

            Similarly, the size of the economy isn’t fixed, because it’s subject to market fluctuations and business cycles; the economy expands and retrenches under market conditions. To speak, then, of job growth in a vacuum as if all other variables remain constant is foolish. Right now adding jobs is in fact making up for lost jobs; as new jobs are added, some companies, like Bank of America, are announcing massive layoffs. Is anyone doing the math in DC?

Can a President really promise to expand the job market? Or is he catching up to the realities of corporate layoffs and hiring? Perhaps he should follow Governor Perry of Texas who rightfully claims to have contributed about 40% of all the new jobs the country added since the official end of the Great Recession in 2009. But since about 47% of Texas’ new jobs were government jobs, is this a model we should follow? It’s difficult to remain principled in this economy…

            Perhaps we should lower the rhetorical volume and focus more on the changing realities of the marketplace, adapt as we go along, maintaining integrity and cordiality. Without the kindness of others, as consumers, employees, government clerks, police officers, bankers, and lawyers, no business could have ever succeeded. This lesson every helpless baby knows all too well.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and is the author of Postcapitalism (2009). He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com