Harvard professor, Edward L. Glaeser wrote the article ``The Moral Heart of Economics `` on the New York Times. He argued that contrary to popular belief, economics does have an underlying moral base. He wrote that, although most economists ostensibly believe only in the maximization of personal satisfaction often at the cost of others` welfare, the discipline economics is perfectly compatible with morals and ethics. Glaesar said that in the past famous economists such Adam Smith has said that moral consciousness is integral in the proper distribution of income in society. He also makes the controversial argument that welfare occurs when people have more choices. Essentially, this means that the consequence of any public policy is the maximization of choices. Fondness for freedom is perfectly compatible with the redistribution of income that take place due to the imposition of taxes. The imposition of specific public policies such as taxation results in the inevitable maximization of choices for certain groups in society-the poor in many cases. In such ways, the greater welfare of the society is possible to be attained while taking morals and ethics into consideration.
However in this article, Glaeser does not account for the effects of the range of choices of richer members of society. By the imposition of certain progressive taxation, income is redistributed from the rich to the poor to strike a more equitable balance in society. But this policy inevitably results in the minimization of choices for the advantaged class of society. Therefore, while it may be true that public policies do create welfare for many, it results in the minimization of choices for others. One question that remains unanswered is, how can certain public policies be designed that maximize choices for all members of society and henceforth result in overall social welfare?
