Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Corporations: moral, immoral, or amoral?
Corporations: moral, immoral, or amoral?
Jan 10, 2026 7:55 PM

Is the free market moral? To hear its opponents describe it, the free market is an unethical system that exploits workers, consumers and the environment to make a quick buck. To critics such as Marx, capitalism leaves “no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest,” replacing human connections with cost-benefit analyses and supply-and-demand charts.

Despite its detractors, capitalism is a system that allows for the continued growth of wealth across the globe, and to quote Jonah Goldberg of the National Review, “the best anti-poverty program ever conceived.” If one considers lifting the poor out of poverty as moral, he or she may begin to see the free market as a “moral” system after all.

Despite its material benefits to the global society, the free market in and of itself is not a moral actor. Rather, the market reflects the moral choices of consumers and producers.

The free market, simply put, is a system based on peting desires of consumers who want to use their wealth as efficiently as they can. It prised of workers who want to make the most money they can and providers who want to make the largest profit they can. Each of peting desires, like the three branches of the American government, works to offset the power of the other two. In the correct circumstances, which usually involve the state getting out of the way, this system provides for the wages and products necessary for individual and family life, as well as the capital necessary for the continued growth of business and global wealth.

Such a system is neither a panacea nor a treacherous system of exploitation in and of itself, but rather a trio peting self-interests. Even so, it is not exactly amoral, either. In a free market system, consumers have the ability to choose with whom they wish to do business, and these decisions are usually not solely based on an economic determinism of finding the best deal. Meanwhile, employees, executives and stockholders e to the table with their own scruples regarding pany’s use of capital. In short, corporations are not moral actors, but the decisions of those involved with them determine their morality.

Because of panies in the free market are mirrors of the morality and opinions of both their clientele and their decision-makers. Take, for instance, Walmart, the ubiquitous symbol of corporate efficiency. According to an article by The Wall Street Journal, Walmart has undertaken several morally-motivated actions, such as ending the sale of Confederate-themed merchandise and opposing a bill that would allow religious belief-based discrimination against LGBT customers, as a deliberate part of their CEO Doug McMillon’s plan to make Walmart the world’s “most trusted retailer.” In other words, Walmart has taken a stand on these issues not due to something inherent within pany, but rather due to bination of its CEO’s beliefs and an attempt to garner support from like-minded consumers.

Walmart’s market-based moralizing is not an outlier. Who hasn’t seen “fair trade” products advertised in their local coffee shop, or donations to a particular charity taken from the price of a good? Corporations make these decisions based on the whims of their executives, stockholders or customers, not because of an inherent sense of duty to do the right thing. In other panies seek to plish what their stakeholders see as “good,” whatever that may be.

Companies parrot the opinions of the people involved in them, and this is an ever-present reminder that the market is not by itself a wholly sufficient solution to society’s problems. Companies are not, in and of themselves, moral actors; your local fast-food franchise will not be espousing political opinions or performing philanthropy without a push from customers or decision-makers within pany.

To return to the question: Is the free market moral? The answer plicated. Corporations are the greatest mechanism for economic growth, but at their worst they also have the potential to be a severely damaging influence on society. For this reason, both decision-makers and customers have an obligation to guide the decisions of corporations. When enough customers disavow themselves from pany, it must change whatever it has done that customers find morally unacceptable, or pay an economic price. Likewise, executives and stockholders guide corporations towards doing good when their decisions have a ponent as well as fiscal. Properly understood, corporations are extraordinary tools for the growth of prosperity worldwide, but like all tools, people must make the right decisions on how to use them.

Prieur – CC-BY-SA)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Explainer: the prohibition on political speech in churches
Why is political speech in churches back in the news? During his speech at the recent Republican National Convention, Donald Trump said, “An amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religious institutions with a loss of their tax-exempt status if they openly advocate their political views.” The new GOP platform also says the “federal government, specifically the IRS, is constitutionally prohibited from policing or censoring speech based on religious convictions or beliefs” and urges the repeal of the...
Is free trade a form of warfare?
Throughout his presidential campaign Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that Mexico is “killing us on trade” because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This metaphor of trade as war or conflict is mon trope among leftists. But is it true? Are Americans harmed by trade deficits? As Johan Norberg explains this notion is “dead wrong.” And to see why we just have to look at the iPhone. ...
New book explores significant relationship between religious and economic freedom
On sale now at the Acton Book Store The role of economic liberty in contributing to human flourishing and mon good remains deeply underappreciated, even by those who are dedicated to religious liberty. – Samuel Gregg Gregg is acontributor of One and Indivisible: The Relationship Between Religious and Economic Freedom, on sale now in the Acton Book Shop. Compiled by Kevin Schmiesing, the book contains 13 essays from highly acclaimed authors, speakers, and religious leaders, including Michael Matheson Miller, Anielka...
George Washington’s principles for the nation revisited
In a recent article titled “George Washington’s Constitutional Morality,” Samuel Gregg explores the views of the first President on the founding principles and guiding influences of the United States. Gregg identifies three key elements of Washington’s political wishes for the new nation: Washington identified a distinct set of ideas that he thought should shape what he and others called an “Empire of Liberty”—classical republicanism, eighteenth-century English and Scottish Enlightenment thought, and “above all” Revelation. Washington, like many of the Founders,...
Re-branding capitalism for millennials
“Over the last decade, millennials have been characterized as filled with a sense of entitlement, lazy, and disillusioned,” says Allison Gilbert in this week’s Acton Commentary. “In the past year they have acquired another label: socialist” Despite the fact that the Democratic Party has begun to adopt more policies of the far left — like the $15 minimum wage — many polls show that less than half of Sanders supporters say they will be voting for Clinton this fall. Taking...
Economic and religious implications of the RNC Platform
In the wake of last week’s Republican National Convention, and in the midst of the Democratic National Convention, it is more important than ever for voters to be thoroughly educated on each party’s platform going into the general election season. In two recent posts on the Republican Party platform, (part one, part two) Joe Carter provides prehensive summary of the Republican Party’s main stances (we’ll look at some of the Democratic Party’s platform issues in a later post). Some of...
Does Microfinance Help the Poor?
This week at the Institute for Faith, Work and Economics, contributor James Clark asked, “Can microfinance really help the poor?” His conclusion: yes microfinance can work, but with certain caveats. In the last decade, microfinance has e a popular strategy in poverty alleviation, yet many economists and philanthropists often call its effectiveness into question. In his article Clark says that “Christians have embraced microfinance as a solution to poverty that helps the poor help themselves, but we must ensure that...
Richard Epstein on conflict between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom
Late last month, a federal judge declared Mississippi’s “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act” (HB 1523) unconstitutional. In response, legal scholar and libertarian Richard Epstein discussed issues of religious freedom and anti-discrimination initiatives on the latest episode of the Hoover Institution’s podcast, The Libertarian. The Mississippi law was written to protect those with specific religious objections on issues of marriage, sexual acts outside of marriage, and gender. The law would give people with the specified views the state-protected...
Explainer: What You Should Know About the Republican Party Platform (Part II)
Note: This second article in a two-part series on the Republican Party Platform. Part I can be found here. In the previous articlewe looked atsummary outline of the Republican platform as it relates to several non-economic issues covered by the Acton Institute. Today, we’ll look at the GOP’s economic agenda as laid out in the platform. Because the document is long (66 pages) and covers an extensive variety of economic-related areas (agriculture, energy) this list won’t be exhaustive. But it...
Faded Memories Are Leading to a Rejection of Free Markets
After almost a hundred years of seeing the effects of socialism and other government interventions in the market, American attitudes began to change in the 1980s and 1990s. The benefits of deregulation and privatization began to seem obvious and more people began to embrace free enterprise. But as Daniel Yergin notes, there is now a shift away from markets due partially to “fading memories of the old order—or no memories at all.” Voters under 30 were either very small or...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved