The relation between the market economy and morality is a difficult problem for modern society. From the theoretical view-point, the economic system is related basically to the collaborative efforts of human beings to provide for their existence; as an object of social science, it again is closely related to the study of the desires of human beings and their methods of providing for their existence. Therefore, the economic system and morality interact closely now as in the past. The economist L. Haney held that the earliest specific form of economic thought appeared in the classifi-cation of human beings into social strata and the disposal of objects during life and at death (L. Haney, 1901). Those economic thoughts often were expressed in the form of moral requirements, and different economic systems in different ages generated different moral ideas. The market is meant to solve a fundamental economic problem faced by all societies, that is, who will produce what goods for what people? There are two main ways to solve this problem in modern societies: a command system and a market system.

In a command system all decisions regarding what is to be produced, who will produce it, and who will get it are made by a single authority or a committee. The authority communicates these decisions to the members of the system, and all takes place in accord with their commands. Centralized management is a logical result of the command system. This does not mean that we need no plan for production: if we wish the distribution of income and wealth to coincide with a specific criterion, we certainly need a plan (F. Hayek, 1944). The centralized plan in a command system, however, means that we must centralize the command of all the economic activities of the members of the society (Charles E. Lindeblom, 1977). Individuals have no freedom and cannot arrange their own actions and needs according to their own con-science. Production for use as well as for ethical goals replaces production for profit.

In principle it is impossible for the government, a committee or any human being to allocate natural resources with the same efficiency as the market, because human beings cannot have enough information nor calculate rapidly enough to coordinate efficiently the hundreds of thousands of daily exchanges required by a complex industrial economy. We have no value context which conveys and contains everything. The authority or committee which makes the rules of action for people in a command system actually becomes "a factory which manufactures the moral norm", and then those "special products" are sold to the people under compulsion in a command system, every detail of the plan is actually a governmental and absolute moral order; the plan itself is wholly free from criticism. However, the plan with its complete details devised for the development of thought leads only to a stagnation of thought and a decline of reason.

The other main economic system in modern society is the "free market", within which individual firms -- each privately-owned and desirous of making a profit -- make their own decisions about what they will produce and how they will produce it. Each firm then exchanges its goods with other firms and with consumers at the most advantageous prices it can obtain. Naturally, a free market system cannot exist unless individuals are legally free to come together in "markets" voluntarily to exchange their goods. The debates about whether government commands should intervene in the market or whether the market system should remain free of all government intervention began in the 18th century. But there are no pure market systems; that an economy be partially coordinated by a government does not contradict the free market system.

As an economic system, the market economy is more efficient and moral than a command system, though it also breeds confusion. Many pointed out that the market economy places all social life under the price mechanism, for under this system every-thing has its price: its value is its price. It is important to explore the "moral failure" of the market economy and to treat it. This paper, however, will not discuss in detail the negative morality of the market economy, but instead will describe briefly its positive influence on morality.

The market economy has not only such laws as cost-benefit analyses and efficient disposition of natural resources, but is also interlocked with the subject of economic behavior and hence with the behavior, thoughts and requirements of human beings. For individuals the existing social relations and economic orders constitute the unchangeable objective order in which they exist. If one wants to attain one’s goal, one has to be involved in this order and adjust oneself to it (L.V. Mises, 1936). Under this condition, the objective social economic process nurtures and chooses its economic character and creates its own norms of behavior and spiritual ethos.

People adjust their action to each other in competing in the market economy where everyone is free to judge the relations between complex interests. Under social laws whereby people can trade and sell freely, the economic system molds a cohesive personality -- make good choices, be responsible -- and there is no lack of ethical character in modern economic society. As long as we are responsible for our interests, and have freedom to choose or to give up one’s interests, our decisions embody moral values. Thus the market exchange implies a moral foundation.

Life is determined by various factors in a market economy, the choice of which may be synthesized in many combinations, such as different individual’s material interests, occupations, market and price. All these different objective material interests naturally engender different moral ideas, which would not correspond to a single moral norm. Any attempt at static moral demands or a perfect standard norm would be futile; everyone’s choices enter into the overall measurement of value. In fact, in our economic life we often make choices between different values, and need no advice in doing so. This does not mean that our moral concepts are fragmented (F. Hayek, 1944). To primitive man, all daily activities were subject to unnecessary and overelaborate formalities, and their moral ideas expressed their natural identify, but that age has become an historic relic. The modern ethical spirit, born from its economic order or market economy, is not a series of monotonous, inflexible, and stereotyped moral norms, but a pluralistic, tolerant, and multi-layer series, through which we can obtain a dynamic balance between moral ideas and social realities.

On the other hand, the social requirements of human beings are multifarious and complicated, and the different modes of life of different strata and varieties imply various choices regarding social values, reflecting interpenetration and influences of different types. Under these conditions a demand for a uniform morality often evokes contrary results. So, from reason and experience we should take the pluralism of moral ideas in the market economy, not only as an effort at understanding and interpreting the questions presented by the actual economic world, but also as the result of re-training and of sublimating the moral ideas attained through individual decision and choice in one’s own economic life and behavior.

It is often asked whether the rules of the market economy can be examined by morality? The market economy encourages people to do whatever is in their best interest; it leads people to do various things in the pursuit of profits. Theorists associate this most closely to ethical egoism. The spontaneous order of market, however, does not means that it allows all the things without law and principle "in a laissez-faire" manner. It seemed to Adam Smith that an "invisible hand" releases profound energy which inevitably leads to fur-thering the public welfare. On condition that one does not offend the law of justice, everyone should be given full freedom to take one’s own way in pursuing one’s profit and to compete with anyone or class on the basis of one’s own work and capital:

By directing his industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, the individual intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end that was no part of his intention. . . . By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it.

 

The "invisible hand", of course is market competition. Every producer seeks to make his or her living by using one’s private resources to produce and sell goods. A multiplicity of such private firms must all compete with each other for the same buyer in a competitive market, each wanting to supply what consumers want. Apparently, the competition produced by a multiplicity of self-interested private sellers serves to lower prices, conserve resources and allocate resources efficiently. We can see without any analysis that competition is the central philosophy of the market economy, and that all its aspects -- efficiency, business success, and in-creased employment -- are themselves ethical.

It is obvious that unrestrained self-interest will unavoidly lead to acquisitiveness, and even destroy the success and wealth obtained (G. Schmoller, 1892). A great contribution of the classic economists and most philosophers of the 18th century is that they discovered that on condition that there be a suitable system of laws, the individual’s self-interested activities can benefit society (J.M. Buchanan, 1986). They built a bridge of which one side led individual freedom and the other side was tied to the legal system. It is a by-product of the development of a market economy that, through perfecting laws to establish an individual share, everyone can pursue their self-interests without conflict. So far as the behavior of any individual does not offend the social legal system and intrude on the freedom of other people, it should be provided with maximum protection against outside obstacles. Therefore, morality is used not to suppress the self-interested desires of members of society, but to order those desires toward fulfillment in the development of history. In practical life the many demands of human beings are elevated to a response to the duties imposed by history, or to an affirmation of the laws of social development. This is not the same as to draw a sketch effectively rooting objective historic logic in the interests and emotions of human beings, which demands would in any case be blank and impotent. The reason the market economy can arouse the strong emotions of human beings is that it does not ask the people to do things that violate their interests. The individuals’ concerns for their own material interests are but a very small fraction in the whole area of social interests, and the measurement of value is always limited by individual conceptions. Under these conditions it is inevitable that the different measurements by individuals will meet with contradictions and conflicts. The characteristic operation of the market economy logically necessitates protection of individual rights to choice and value preferences rather than those regulated by society, and acknowledges the individual as the ultimate judge of his or her interests, goals and requirements.

already considered Buddha to be present in everyone’s soul. All creatures are alive; even a stone has life. At that time, to the mind of some of Xiao Cheng’s disciples this view seemed fallacious. But when the translation of Da Ban Yie Ban Yin ( ) came out it confirmed that Buddha is present in everything with no exceptions, even of a stone. It is said that Master Dao Sheng travelled widely to disseminate Buddhist doctrine. The story that once he went to Hangzhou to give a sermon, and the stone in the pool bowed to him survives to the present day. Though only folklore, it implies an ethical principles for environmental protection. The stone, if viewed merely as a stone, certainly is lifeless, but in Chinese philosophy the Confucian, Taoist and Buddhist schools all believe that everything is infused with life and is equal so that even a stone had a reason for existence and its proper soul.

Chinese Da Sheng Buddhism holds that everybody and everything has the Buddhist spirit and can turn into Buddha and display its splendid life value in the world. The idea of ecological ethics that everything in nature has equal life value, equal right and equal dignity in nature is very similar to what Chinese Da Cheng Buddhism calls the Buddha soul and spirit. It is claimed in Da Ban Yin Ban Yin ( ) that all things have an equal right to survive and evolve. This is similar to the theory of modern ecological ethics which also upholds that everything on earth has the right to exist and develop.

Modern ecology requires us to change nature and protect it. The co-existence of the objectives of nature and humanity requires that we adopt a policy of both changing and protecting the nature.

Humankind cannot use nature’s objective to replace his own, but he be at the mercy of nature. For the same reason, we cannot supplant nature’s objective by that of humanity. We must acknowledge and respect nature’s objective, and protect its ecological balance, structure and reproductive capacity. At same time, under certain conditions, we must transform nature, change the course of realizing its objective, and enable the human objective to be realized. From this starting point, we must draw upon the treasures of ancient philosophy and strive vigorously to construct and develop ecological ethics.CHAPTER XX

The development of an ideal personality is a necessity for every human and is a topic of philosophical research. In history there is a parallel between the development of the personalities of both men and a women, but the difference between the two is much more conspicuous. Generally speaking, the molding and improvement of women’s personality is more difficult and requires more attention. Of course, the forming of personality is influenced by many elements, among which is the economical activity. From the point of view historical materialism this is the primary and the most immediate factor. This study concerns the relation between development of economics and of the personality of women.

The theme here is that both males and females are subjects of a creative society, but under different socio-economic forms which imply that the female has a specific experience. During economically primitive times women held a higher position as authorities of families and society, but were not self aware in this regard. In agricultural economies, women’s authority collapsed and they lost their whole personality, manifesting thereby the antinomy which can exist between the development of the economy and of women’s personality. The development of the industrial economy and the establishment of the system of democracy awoke and helped evolve women’s personality. However, backwardness of thought regarding the development of the economy and consequent male behavior created difficulties for women’s personality development. A modernized economy will enrich the female subject’s personality and open the possibilities for women to rediscover their self and improve their personality.

Almost every nation has undergone a time when they worshiped female goddesses and had beautiful legends concerning their authority. Female goddesses could not only repair heaven and make the earth, but could also create and multiply human beings. The worship of female goddesses reflects the authoritive position of female in material things and in producing human beings during primitive economic times. With respect to material production, their level then was very low. Women collected natural fruit, while men hunted for animals, but because of poor instruments men often came back with nothing, whereas the collection of fruit by women was the main source of food. In their state of group marriage, everyone knew his or her mother without knowing the father; child bearing was considered the business of women alone. In both material and human production women occupied a dominant position and were respected by everybody. With men they worked hard for the development of humankind, but did not ride roughshod over people by means of their position. Hence, their personalities were sound and beneficial. In such a time women had both position and personality, but they could not be said to have had independent individual personalities. They were conscious of a heavy dependence upon nature and human beings; there was no place for a sense of independent personality.

Progress in productive tools changed the natural division of labor. The rise of agriculture and livestock provided a new productive force. In addition, individual marriage replaced group marriage so that people knew their own parents. Child bearing was no longer a holy affair, but a burden binding women in the family. Men came to occupy the authoritive position in society originally held by women. With the establishment of the system of private property, women no longer had an independent personality, but became an exploited and oppressed part of men’s property.

The development of economy and the progress of the marriage relation need not have led to the loss of women’s personality, but the fact is just the contrary. We have seen several antinomies above: first, women invented primitive agriculture, contributed to the invention of fire and livestock farming, and helped to bring about the development of the economy and progress in history. At the same time, women showed themselves less competent than men in such productive activities as agriculture and livestock farming, which made them subordinate to men; second, women contributed to the continuation of the human race, but child bearing bound them in families and deprived them of the opportunity to take part in social activities; third, males created the culture and value system and made themselves subjects of the society, while treating females as object and tools. Although these are historical antinomies, they were inevitable for human beings in their efforts to free themselves for the bonds of nature. In a society of low productive power, it is an axiom that the weak are prey to the strong. The backwardness of production and its corresponding feudal system and culture could not provide room for an equality of both sexes. Therefore, for the progress of the economy it was unavoidable that women’s personality would be sacrificed. In the dark ages in China as well as in the West women could not participate in politics and the praiseworthy characters of the female were also distorted: women become jealous due to living together with their husband’s concubines; they became self effacing due to being subject to maltreatment; and they became narrow-minded through living for a long time in the boudoir without going out. In the meantime, the distortion of the male personality was manifested in another way. Many men were subordinate to other men due to the social system which gave primary to the father’s rights so that they had no personality of their own. In the family, marriage for the sole purpose of child bearing and expression of the sexual impulse without love alienated the human essence of males.

The industrial economy destroyed the natural sense of the family as the basic unit. Great quantities of labor were needed by large industry. This created opportunities for women to enter social life, to participate in economic activities, to earn salaries, and hence no longer to be the property of others. This provided a good basis for their positions as social subjects. In addition, the democratic system, corresponding to the industrial economy, promoted such ideas as "all are equal in terms of money"; "all are equal before the law", "all are equal before God". This gave rise to public opinion favorable to the independence of women as regards their personality. All this was helpful in awakening women’s personalities as subjects. In industrial society women actively fulfilled their obligations while seeking their legitimate rights and interests in activities which constantly improve their personality. However, the following elements in industrial society frustrated the development of women’s personality or even subjected it to certain deviations.

First, industrial production places the machine at the center; it aims at producing material objects and is determined by the investment of human power and other resources; it emphasizes physical labor and operational technology, and the proportion of physical labor is much greater than that of mental work. This situation is unfavorable to women; they suffer sexual discrimination in seeking a job, which hinders the establishment of women’s personalties as subjects.

Second, due to the backwardness of ideas in comparison to the progress of the economy, certain feudal ideas such as "the male has dignity while the female is humble" and "a woman should be subordinate to a man" still fetter women, and influence social expectations regarding their role and value. This gives rise to certain dilemmas for women in seeking their rights and fulfilling their obligations. Many women feel a tension between their role in society and in their family, and in seeking a position in social life while feeling a sense of obligation to be a good wife and mother.

Third, the male culture inclines women to be masculine: as society has long been dominated by men the behavior of successful men in social life is taken as the pattern for all people. As women have not created their own pattern of behavior, they must conform to the pattern of man’s behavior so that their role in social life will more easily be accepted. This stage cannot be surmounted until women fully participate as subjects in society. Although the slogans such as "equality for both sexes" play a great role in freeing women from the fetters of family to become subjects in society, they are harmful to the maintenance of the distinctively female personality. In China, a trend toward the masculinization of women was strong after the 1950s, and reach its height in the 1970s. The "Iron Young Woman" in the 1950s was very similar to the male physique; in the 1970s the dress, even the style of women’s hair, was masculinized. Coming into 1980s, people exclaimed with surprising that "there are no woman in this country"; they began to doubt whether the "strong woman" was perfect in personality. Women refused to be masculinized.

However, people have no answer to the question what is the ideal personality for women? They sink into puzzlement and inertia. Men are afraid of their wives being "strong women", and women themselves fear being "strong women". In order to be thought of as tender, many women do not dare to show their talent, but then they worry about being too feminine; they do not know how to mould their personalities. The solution to the problem requires further development in the economy as well as constant progress in ideology; one is complementary to the other.

The modernized economy is a great revolution over the traditional one and will bring about change in all facets of society. The female personality will be developed and improved in the process of the modernization of society and its ideal will be realized.

First, the productive mode of the modernized economy helps manifest the personality of women as subjects. In modern industry, what determines the production is no longer physical human strength, but the application of a high level of technology, which increases the proportion of mental work. Now in some developed countries, the proportion of mental work versus physical labor approximates 1:1, while the value created by the former far exceeds that created by the latter. Therefore, the application of high level technology will reduce or eliminate the physical inferiority of women in production, and enable women to give play to their superiority in patience, carefulness and nimbleness. This is obviously indicated in developed countries: in the U.K. women have more job opportunities than men.

Second, the operational mode of a modernized economy enables women to choose the job suited to them. The open, dynamic pattern of the economy enables women to find positions of their own in a wider range of social activity. In developed countries, women are exploring molding ideal personalities. They are not the traditional good mothers and wives who sacrifice themselves in a closed family context, nor are they the so-called strong women of industrial times. They develop their own standard and hope to get a valuable job with flexible hours and a good location; they hope to take account of both family and career. Some women give up work and become housewives while bring up their children, but their return to the family is for the purpose of educating their children and giving their children the natural love of a mother so that the children can grow soundly. In the meantime, they engage in further studies to give play to their potentialities or to develop their interests, so that they will be more competitive when they take up a career after their children have grown up. Such exploration is praiseworthy under the conditions of a modernized economy; it advances the civilization of the whole society.

Third, the high educational level of society, the high degree of democracy and the modernization and socialization of house work due to the modernization of the economy will enable women to elevate their quality as human beings, to demonstrate their personality, to strengthen their competitive power in social life, and to realize a sound personality. There will be a day when we need no longer emphasize that the male and the female differ and recognize that there is something common to both sexes. Then the peculiar and varied beauty of the character and personality of the female will demonstrate itself naturally in the world.

Of course, molding the female personality depends not merely on the progress of economy and is not merely a matter for women alone. It depends on the consistent efforts of the whole society; this requires theoretical work by scholars to find the incompatibilities and in time eliminate them.