Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 429–440 | Cite as

Commodification and Human Interests

  • Julian J. KoplinEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

In Markets Without Limits and a series of related papers, Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski argue that it is morally permissible to buy and sell anything that it is morally permissible to possess and exchange outside of the market. Accordingly, we should (Brennan and Jaworski argue) open markets in “contested commodities” including blood, gametes, surrogacy services, and transplantable organs. This paper clarifies some important aspects of the case for market boundaries and in so doing shows why there are in fact moral limits to the market. I argue that the case for restricting the scope of the market does not (as Brennan and Jaworski assume) turn on the idea that some things are constitutively non-market goods; it turns instead on the idea that treating some things according to market norms would threaten the realization of particular kinds of human interests.

Keywords

Commodification Market boundaries Market design Moral dumbfounding Semiotic arguments 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by funding from the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program.

References

  1. Anderson, E. 1990. The ethical limitations of the market. Economics and Philosophy 6(2): 179–205.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1995. Value in ethics and economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Archard, D. 2002. Selling yourself: Titmuss’s argument against a market in blood. The Journal of Ethics 6(1): 87–103.Google Scholar
  4. Block, W. 1999. Market-inalienability once again: Reply to Radin. Thomas Jefferson Law Review 22: 37–88.Google Scholar
  5. Brennan, J., and P. Jaworski. 2015a. In defense of commodification. Moral Philosophy and Politics 2(2): 357–377.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2015b. Markets without symbolic limits. Ethics 125(4): 1053–1077.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2016. Markets without limits: Moral virtues and commercial interests. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2017. If you can reply for money, you can reply for free. The Journal of Value Inquiry 51(4): 655–661.Google Scholar
  9. Capron, A. 2014. Six decades of organ donation and the challenges that shifting the United States to a market system would create around the world. Law and Contemporary Problems 77(3): 25–69.Google Scholar
  10. Haidt, J., and S. Murphy. 2000. Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Holland, S. 2001. Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11(3): 263–284.Google Scholar
  12. Jaworski, P., and J. Brennan. 2015. Market architecture: It’s the how, not the what. Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 13: 231.Google Scholar
  13. Kass, L. 1992. Organs for sale? Propriety, property, and the price of progress. The Public interest 107: 65–86.Google Scholar
  14. Keat, R. 2000. Market boundaries and human goods. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements 45: 23–36.Google Scholar
  15. Kerstein, S.J. 2009. Kantian condemnation of commerce in organs. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19(2): 147–169.Google Scholar
  16. Koplin, J.J. 2014. Assessing the likely harms to kidney vendors in regulated organ markets. The American Journal of Bioethics 14(10): 7–18.Google Scholar
  17. Koplin, J.J., and M.J. Selgelid. 2015. Burden of proof in bioethics. Bioethics 29(9): 597–603.Google Scholar
  18. Malmqvist E. (2013) Kidney sales and the analogy with dangerous employment. Health Care Analysis 23(2): 1–15.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, D., and S. White. 2014. Risk, regulation, and financial incentives for living kidney donation. The American Journal of Bioethics 14(10): 46–48.Google Scholar
  20. Phillips, A. 2013. Our bodies, whose property? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Radin, M.J. 1986. Market-inalienability. Harvard Law Review 100: 1849–1937.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1996. Contested commodities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rippon, S. 2014. Imposing options on people in poverty: The harm of a live donor organ market. Journal of Medical Ethics 40(3): 145–150.Google Scholar
  24. Roth, A.E. 2007. Repugnance as a constraint on markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3): 37–58.Google Scholar
  25. Royzman, E.B., K. Kim, and R.F. Leeman. 2015. The curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision Making; Tallahassee 10(4): 296–313.Google Scholar
  26. Sandel, M. 2000. What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21: 87–122.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2012. What money can’t buy: The moral limits of markets. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  28. Satz, D. 2010. Why some things should not be for sale: The moral limits of markets. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Semrau, L. 2017. Reassessing the likely harms to kidney sellers in regulated organ markets. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 42(6): 634–652Google Scholar
  30. Tetlock, P.E. 2000. Coping with trade-offs: Psychological constraints and political implications. In Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality, edited by A. Lupia, M.D. McCubbins, and S.L. Popkin, 239–263. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Titmuss, R.M. 1997. The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy. New York, NY: New Press.Google Scholar
  32. Van Zyl, L. and R. Walker R. 2013. Beyond altruistic and commercial contract motherhood: The professional model. Bioethics 27(7): 373–381.Google Scholar
  33. Walsh, A. 2013. Commodification. In International Encyclopedia of Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee712/abstract.
  34. Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of justice: A defense of pluralism and equality. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pty Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Melbourne Law SchoolUniversity of MelbourneCarltonAustralia
  2. 2.Biomedical Ethics Research GroupMurdoch Children’s Research InstituteParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations