Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:08:45.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Mistake in the Commodification Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2018

LUKE SEMRAU
LUKE SEMRAU*
Affiliation:
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITYLuke.Semrau@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

A significant debate has developed around the question: What are the moral limits of the market? This paper argues that this debate proceeds on a mistake. Both those who oppose specific markets and those who defend them, adopt the same deficient approach. Participants illicitly proceed from an assessment of the transactions making up a market to a judgment of that market's permissibility. This inference is unlicensed. We may know everything there is to know about the transactions in a specific market—they might all be absolutely bad—but we will not yet know whether that market should be prohibited. To discern this, to establish that intervention into some specific market is justifiable, one must supply a rather different assessment. One must compare the outcome in which that market is permitted with the best outcome available in its absence. None in this debate has offered such a judgment.

Keywords

commodificationmarketsblocked exchanges
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , Fall 2017 , pp. 354 - 371
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, Elizabeth. (1993) Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brennan, Jason, and Jaworski, Peter M.. (2016) Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goyal, Madhav, Mehta, Ravindra L., Schneiderman, Lawrence J., and Sehgal, Ashwini R.. 2002. ‘Economic and Health Consequences of Selling a Kidney in India.’ Journal of the American Medical Association, 288,1589–93.Google Scholar
Marshall, T. H. 2009. ‘Citizenship and Social Class.’ In Manza, Jeff and Sauder, Michael (ed.), Inequality and Society (New York: Norton), 148–54.Google Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane. (1987) ‘Market-inalienability’. Harvard Law Review, 100, 1849–1937.Google Scholar
Satz, Debra. (2010) Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits Of Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, Allison, Chapman, Jeremy R., Wong, Germaine, Cross, Nicholas B., Batabyal, Pikli, and Craig, Jonathan C.. (2012) ‘The Experiences of Commercial Kidney Donors: Thematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research.’ Transplant International, 25, 1138–49.Google Scholar