When we think about morality, we usually focus on actions: is this act morally right or wrong? But increasingly, these kinds of debates involve the morality of everyday objects, like plastic bottles, smartphones or even the the food on our plates.
Our research shows that objects themselves can not only carry moral weight, but that these judgments can change over time. Take tattoos, for instance. Have you ever considered if having tattoos is considered moral, immoral or simply amoral?
In our recent research, we demonstrate how mainstream societal sentiments for tattoos have changed throughout history. We conducted a meta-synthesis of existing studies to develop a framework for understanding how moral attributions in markets are shaped.
Our findings show that shared moral sentiments toward objects, products or services are neither fixed nor are universally shared. By “objects,” we mean products and services that people might use, consume or embody due to moral associations, like plastic bags, tattoos, fur clothing or diamond jewelry.
The shifting moral landscape of tattoos
In early societies, tattoos were not stigmatized, but they were used to mark identity, social belonging or spiritual protection. This is still an ongoing sentiment in some cultures, including Kurds, Inuit and some Indigenous groups in the Philippines.
In the 19th century, tattoos started to have divergent moral meanings, including negative ones, depending on the context. For sailors, they were a mark of their sea adventures or the lands they conquered. For people in the periphery of the Global North, they were symbols of non-conformity.
Since then, the moral judgments of tattoos have fluctuated between being seen moral or immoral across time and place. Tattoos were seen as signs of bravery and remembrance for Second World War soldiers, yet in other contexts, they were associated with criminality or gang affiliation.
These changes happen through complex social processes that involve social entities with differing capacities: individuals, groups (like unions or consumer collectives) and organizations (like churches or governments). We call this process “marketplace moralization,” which produces what we call “marketplace moral sentiments.”
Not always black-and-white
Marketplace moral sentiments are not always black-and-white, but also can be in-between, debated and negotiated, such as in the case of meat consumption. While vegans consider it immoral to consume meat, other groups might consider it morally neutral or even necessary for cultural or health reasons.
To understand how these moral debates unfold, we used actor-network-theory — which involves the translation stages of problematization, enrollment, interessement and mobilization — to map the stages of marketplace moralization. In plain terms, these stages include raising an issue, persuading others and organizing support.
If successful, a new collective moral sentiment forms. For example, a new consensus about the necessity of eating animal protein can shift nutrition guidelines to advocate for more plant-based protein.
If unsuccessful, however, the old sentiment remains dominant. This means the object’s moral status remains contested and subject to further negotiation.
Outcomes of marketplace moralization
Our research found marketplace moralization can produce one of four outcomes. Sometimes an object can achieve “harmonized moral sentiment,” where nearly everyone agrees it is moral or immoral. Donating to charity, for example, is widely recognized as morally good. It is supported by your social network, and rewarded by government policies such as tax deductions.
Other times, an object can have a “divided moral sentiment,” with different groups holding opposing views. Some Hummer owners, for instance, moralize the purchase of their vehicles by arguing that it is an expression of individual freedom and rights or that it is a necessity for safer trips, while others condemn them as wasteful or environmentally harmful.
In some cases, moral sentiments are dispersed: a few people may challenge a widely held view but lack broad support. Early critics of bullfighting in Spain, for instance, spoke out against a deeply cherished cultural practice.
Finally, organizations can impose moral views on people through regulations or policies. In this case, individuals and groups are forced to conform even if they privately disagree, such as mask and vaccine mandates during COVID-19.
Why does this matter?
Markets are not just settings for economic exchange; they are also about values and moralized emotions. Large-scale issues like climate change, racism, animal rights or gender equality show how morality and markets are tied together.
Brands often leverage existing moral sentiments by supporting social movements or by promoting eco-friendly products. By doing this, they are also inserting themselves into moralized debates and negotiations.
For example, cosmetics retailer Lush closed its United Kingdom stores on Sept. 3, and shops in the Republic of Ireland on Sept. 4, as a gesture of solidarity with Palestine. The company is also selling watermelon-shaped soap to raise money for medical services in Gaza as part of its Giving Products collection.
More recently, concerns about environmental, cognitive and other ethical issues surrounding generative artificial intelligence have prompted criticism of companies seeking to integrate AI into their products or processes.
These examples illustrate why it is crucial to understand the fluidity of moral judgments about objects, rather than assuming objects have inherent or immutable moral value.
For individuals, this understanding can help contextualize moral disputes and allow them to see that disagreements over objects are not always rooted in absolute moral truths, but often in differing cultural, social and historical perspectives.
For managers and business leaders, it allows a more deliberate application of moral claims — like sustainable, green or cruelty-free — to their products or services while contextualizing them.
And lastly, for policymakers, it allows them to create better policies by monitoring public sentiments on complex issues such as gun ownership, food policy and technology.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
