The relationship between human practices and environmental effects is and always has been cyclical in nature. This relationship can be attributed to individual values ​​and how these values ​​affect choices made on a personal level as well as on an interpersonal level. Concerning interpersonal relationships, these values ​​have gradually become monetary rather than moral, making the global market a very complex and controversial environment when it comes to ethics. According to Sandel, this is a very disturbing thought. Despite debate among ethicists, what we as humans consider “good” or “pure” in terms of human nature should not be assigned a monetary value in the name of our own personal values ​​and interests. This obstruction will be studied and developed, assessing our values ​​as humans and how money cannot buy us a healthy world or lifestyle. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay In Michael Sandel's argument, he explains that economic inquiry cannot compensate for the lack of humanitarian value. Those who believe that money is a source of power are undoubtedly corrupt, but they are unfortunately right. However, Sandel explains that marketing systems and political success cannot exist without values ​​to guide them. Furthermore, throughout his argument, he briefly analyzes the causal externalities that the environment suffers from as a result of transactional decision-making. Perhaps the most important point of Sandel's argument is his recognition that money is a "punishment tax." This shows how freedoms regarding life are limited financially, making a strong argument for the cost of failure. This can have both a positive and negative influence, as littering fees can either serve as a guideline for keeping our environment clean and healthy, but can also be a simple cover for cleaning costs incurred by a third party. This concept is made crucial by the Chinese government and its restrictions on population, but the process of mass production at the expense of atmospheric composition, clearly showing that changes in human thinking can be inherited under the right circumstances and culture. Finally, Sandel discusses nuclear waste and its effects on both the market and the environment. This study is quite shocking in that nuclear waste was more widely accepted when Swiss residents were not offered monetary compensation than when they were. It can highlight the goodness of society or how money affects our decision making due to the presence of doubt and worry about the environmental effects and mechanisms at play. The summary of his essay can be presented as follows: "The more economic thought extends to social and civic life, the more market reasoning becomes inseparable from moral reasoning - 138." Given the complexities associated with the current market system, the entanglement of said system with the Solving moral problems is inevitable. Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski oppose Sandel's argument. Their arguments are sympathetic to Sandel's but emphasize that what is sold is not as important as how it is sold in a marketing environment. The main notable difference in the article, however, is that anti-commodification authors often exaggerate the circumstances in which morality is applicable, providingexamples of utility theory to support their narrative that the solution to these immoral markets is expansion before perfection. This applies to many scenarios because ethics is corruption throughout the activity, where the solution is articulated in such a way that the end justifies the means. This is an excellent example of Machiavellian ethics in that its views lie primarily in the action itself rather than the motivation for the particular action to be performed. It should also be noted that their arguments rely heavily on framing, or their ability to organize arguments and vernacular to challenge rather than focusing on the issue itself. This is made common by their assertion that "'commodification' is a derogatory word for something to sell - 358", and that their arguments focus too much on the sophisticated nature of politics rather than the moral nature of the situation. . . This supports their more general argument that “if it can be done for free, it can be done for money – 359”. This weakens their argument to the extent that their morality is then tied to simply owning or using things they claim are priceless in the first place. This discourages experimentation with the application of certain mechanisms to life and leaves out the essential element of their Machiavellian theories and philosophies highlighted throughout the article. This can be compared to the current issue of gun control and the argument that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” is flawed due to the presence of a constitutional right. This also highlights the irrelevance of the action rather than viewing the object itself as an immoral commodity. This type of framing is used again in their section regarding the exploitation of life and other applicable topics. Although their example lies in human trafficking, clarifying the subject as being "vulnerable" and incapable of defending themselves, it can be applied more broadly to environmental ethics in that human action cannot be dictated by nature’s response. This argument is not applied because marketing often does not consider how exploiting the environment is unfair due to the lack of immediate response. The authors then briefly summarize their argument by saying that "it is not the 'what' but the 'how' - 365 clearly demonstrating to anti-commodification theorists that the 'what' can indeed be as important as the 'how'". how ". in explaining how economic motivations are affected by personal moral applications. This provides a very small scope and another example of framing, looking at the smallest details of a product's sales to justify consumption of the product. These limitations constitute the main obstacle to their argument as well as evidence why their argument is weaker than Sandel's. Threats to humanity tend to bring out the qualities that make us human. For example, the current pandemic has affected almost everyone on this earth, forcing a better understanding of how money and markets affect our daily lives. Responses to these events are similar to those during the Great Depression, where government choices were utilitarian in nature; the risk now is of being exposed to the deadly virus, or of dying from lack of essential supplies. These two events show an interconnectedness of the market and life itself, as human lives were lost in the Great Depression, but are now associated with the fear of funding to allow life to resume..