Reflections on Morals and Markets
Jumping the Queue
One of the ethical dilemmas that Sandel talks about is the idea of jumping the queue. A queue system is when people must wait in line to acquire a good or service. Jumping the queue occurs when people with a high class and a lot of money use that money to skip or speed up their position in the queue.
There are many examples of jumping the queue in modern day culture. Some of these examples can be considered more serious than others. One example is being able to skip the line at amusement parks. Big name amusement parks, like Universal Studios and Six Flags, offer a service that lets customer skip the whole line to ride the attraction first. Customers have to pay for this service, which can be deemed to be expensive. Another example of jumping the queue is in China. China has a queue system to acquire a doctor’s appointment. These appointments are fairly cheap, but some people buy these appointments and sell them for more money, which is known as ticket scalping. This gives these people to make a profit off someone’s willingness to pay for an appointment.
There is a very negative view on jumping the queue in general, but I think that it all depends on the situation. I think that there is a big difference between the two examples that were listed above. In my opinion, jumping the queue is unethical and ethical in different scenarios. In the first scenario, I think that giving the ability to cut the line for a service that is a luxury to begin with is ethical. It is correct to give people who are willing to pay more a chance to get an experience that will fully satisfy them. Sandel says that economists think this example of jumping the queue corrects the supply and demand model because it charges people more for the experience they want. I completely agree with this conclusion.
On the other hand, I think that the situation, in which the ticket scalping for the hospital appointment occurs, is completely unethical. If the hospital is offering appointments for relatively cheap, people should not be able to sell those appointments for more money. I think this because the subject of these appointments is a person’s health, and everyone’s health should be valued at the same price. The price of the ticket should not be based on someone’s willingness to pay. One way to fix this situation is to confirm the identity of the buyer. When the hospital sells the ticket to the customer, it should identify that person and make sure only that person has the ability to redeem that ticket. This ensures only the buyer can use the ticket.
The ethics of jumping the queue should all depend on the situation. Goods and services that are public and considered a necessity to someone should not allow jumping the queue. Moreover, organizations that offer good and services that are luxuries should have the ability to offer a side service that lets more willing customer jump the queue.
Janitors Insurance
Another ethical dilemma that is talked about in Sandel’s books is janitors insurance. This is when companies take out insurance policies for their employees, but also benefit from the policy if any of the employees die. One example of this occurred with a Wal-Mart employee. Michael Rice was helping a customer carry a television to her car when he suffered a heart attack and passed away. Wal-Mart had taken out a life insurance policy, without the knowledge of the Rice family, and benefitted in $300,000 from Mr. Rice’s death.
In my opinion, this situation is unethical for many reasons. People may argue that since Wal-Mart was paying for the insurance, then it should rightfully be able to reap all the benefits. I think that this is wrong in many ways. Firstly, Wal-Mart did it without the consent of Michael Rice. The company should be required to acquire consent from the employee, because it is using the employee’s name and right to take out the insurance. Even though Rice was not hurt from Wal-Mart taking out the insurance policy, he should still have the ability to give consent for it.
Moreover, since Wal-Mart is using Michael Rice’s name, his family should be able to reap some of the benefits of the policy. Before Rice passed away, he should have been given some of the other benefits from the insurance policy and after he died, his family should have received some of the money. Like Sandel said, for Wal-Mart, Michael Rice seemed to be more valuable dead than alive, so Wal-Mart should not be able to put Rice in that position. If some of the insurance money, like 40 to 50 percent, went to the Rice family, then this situation would seem more ethical.
I think there are a few ways to fix this ethical issue. Firstly, the government should require consent from the employee if the company wants to take out a policy on that employee. Another way is to make sure the family benefits from the policy as well. Without the employee, the company does not have the ability to take out the insurance policy, so the family of the employee should be rewarded the money. The family should be rewarded enough money so that the employee is worth more alive than dead, because then the company might have ulterior motives.
One of the ethical dilemmas that Sandel talks about is the idea of jumping the queue. A queue system is when people must wait in line to acquire a good or service. Jumping the queue occurs when people with a high class and a lot of money use that money to skip or speed up their position in the queue.
There are many examples of jumping the queue in modern day culture. Some of these examples can be considered more serious than others. One example is being able to skip the line at amusement parks. Big name amusement parks, like Universal Studios and Six Flags, offer a service that lets customer skip the whole line to ride the attraction first. Customers have to pay for this service, which can be deemed to be expensive. Another example of jumping the queue is in China. China has a queue system to acquire a doctor’s appointment. These appointments are fairly cheap, but some people buy these appointments and sell them for more money, which is known as ticket scalping. This gives these people to make a profit off someone’s willingness to pay for an appointment.
There is a very negative view on jumping the queue in general, but I think that it all depends on the situation. I think that there is a big difference between the two examples that were listed above. In my opinion, jumping the queue is unethical and ethical in different scenarios. In the first scenario, I think that giving the ability to cut the line for a service that is a luxury to begin with is ethical. It is correct to give people who are willing to pay more a chance to get an experience that will fully satisfy them. Sandel says that economists think this example of jumping the queue corrects the supply and demand model because it charges people more for the experience they want. I completely agree with this conclusion.
On the other hand, I think that the situation, in which the ticket scalping for the hospital appointment occurs, is completely unethical. If the hospital is offering appointments for relatively cheap, people should not be able to sell those appointments for more money. I think this because the subject of these appointments is a person’s health, and everyone’s health should be valued at the same price. The price of the ticket should not be based on someone’s willingness to pay. One way to fix this situation is to confirm the identity of the buyer. When the hospital sells the ticket to the customer, it should identify that person and make sure only that person has the ability to redeem that ticket. This ensures only the buyer can use the ticket.
The ethics of jumping the queue should all depend on the situation. Goods and services that are public and considered a necessity to someone should not allow jumping the queue. Moreover, organizations that offer good and services that are luxuries should have the ability to offer a side service that lets more willing customer jump the queue.
Janitors Insurance
Another ethical dilemma that is talked about in Sandel’s books is janitors insurance. This is when companies take out insurance policies for their employees, but also benefit from the policy if any of the employees die. One example of this occurred with a Wal-Mart employee. Michael Rice was helping a customer carry a television to her car when he suffered a heart attack and passed away. Wal-Mart had taken out a life insurance policy, without the knowledge of the Rice family, and benefitted in $300,000 from Mr. Rice’s death.
In my opinion, this situation is unethical for many reasons. People may argue that since Wal-Mart was paying for the insurance, then it should rightfully be able to reap all the benefits. I think that this is wrong in many ways. Firstly, Wal-Mart did it without the consent of Michael Rice. The company should be required to acquire consent from the employee, because it is using the employee’s name and right to take out the insurance. Even though Rice was not hurt from Wal-Mart taking out the insurance policy, he should still have the ability to give consent for it.
Moreover, since Wal-Mart is using Michael Rice’s name, his family should be able to reap some of the benefits of the policy. Before Rice passed away, he should have been given some of the other benefits from the insurance policy and after he died, his family should have received some of the money. Like Sandel said, for Wal-Mart, Michael Rice seemed to be more valuable dead than alive, so Wal-Mart should not be able to put Rice in that position. If some of the insurance money, like 40 to 50 percent, went to the Rice family, then this situation would seem more ethical.
I think there are a few ways to fix this ethical issue. Firstly, the government should require consent from the employee if the company wants to take out a policy on that employee. Another way is to make sure the family benefits from the policy as well. Without the employee, the company does not have the ability to take out the insurance policy, so the family of the employee should be rewarded the money. The family should be rewarded enough money so that the employee is worth more alive than dead, because then the company might have ulterior motives.