Click on the "Social Science Newspaper" above to follow us!
Recommend and read
Ethics and Business Interests
Jason Brennan, Peter M. By M. Jawowski
Zheng Qiang ◎ translation
Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Press
Published in July 2017
Contents
Can you sell your own ballot papers? Can you sell your own kidneys? Can gays pay for surrogacy to have children for them? Can a partner pay to hire a significant other to watch the kids, wash the dishes, or cook? Should the rich be allowed to use genetic engineering to design beautiful, gifted children? ...... Is everything in the world for sale? Shouldn't the market be restricted?
This book uses rigorous arguments, vivid examples, and vivid language to analyze the various doubts and misunderstandings of the market one by one, and is an excellent work that discusses market ethics in recent years.
About the Author
Jason Brennan
(Jason Brennan)
Ph.D., University of Arizona, Associate Professor, McDonald School of Business, Georgetown University, and his major publications include A Brief History of Liberty (co-author, Blackwell Press, 2010), Voting Ethics (Princeton University Press, 2011), Libertarianism (Oxford University Press, 2012), and Why Not Capitalism (Lautrice Press, 2014).
[Beauty] Peter M. Jawowski
（Peter M.Jaworski）
Assistant Professor at Georgetown University's McDonald School of Business, Senior Fellow, Canadian Constitutional Foundation Research Association, and Trustee of the Liberal Studies Society. His works have been published in the Canadian Journal of Law and Law, the Journal of Business Ethics, and Ethical Theory and Moral Practice.
Positively recommended
There are many books on business ethics and commodification, and this one is undoubtedly better than the others. It argues more fully and probes the problem more deeply. Most importantly, it is correct.
--Taylor Cowan (George Mason University)
What I find unusual is that the author, in thinking about and responding to objections, affirms that those objections are desirable, at least from the perspective of the opponents. But the author's argument is still very convincing. Those interested in applied philosophy and policy cannot avoid this book.
—Michael Munger (Duke University)
It is okay, even noble, to give away morally meaningful goods and services, but it is wrong to sell them. This book powerfully challenges this view.
- Philosophical Review of Notre Dame de Paris
The objections of anti-commodification theorists are often messy and emotional, and the authors first articulate them in order to rationally discuss them. They convincingly point out that, in many ways, opponents of the market lack empirical evidence to support their claims... The author's argument is very clear, and the humorous language makes the book more interesting to read.
- "Ethical Theory and Moral Practice"
Wonderful book excerpts
If you can do something for free,
Then it is also possible to do it for a fee
In any case, no one really thinks that anything can be sold under any circumstances. At least everyone agrees that in some cases, something shouldn't be sold.
While we acknowledge this, our title (Markets Without Limits) is not misleading. There is an important reason for us to support a completely unrestricted market. Our view of the market scope can be summarized as follows:
Unrestricted Markets:
If you can do something for free, then you can do it for a fee.
More specifically, if you can own, use, possess, and discard something (that doesn't belong to someone else)and don't charge a fee, you can buy and sell it, except in some special cases. In other words, our argument is that the market does not turn what would otherwise work into something that would otherwise be feasible. The market doesn't introduce mistakes where there were no mistakes in the first place. In other words, in the debate about commoditization, if we want to successfully prove that we really need to set boundaries on the market, then something in the market must lead to an error or at least be related to the error. This thing must play an important role in explaining its errors.
To illustrate these points, consider the following two markets:
(1) Child pornography People sell child pornography pictures in this market.
(2) Nuclear weapons Arms dealers sell nuclear weapons in this market.
We also believe that child pornography and nuclear weapons should not be sold. But the problem with these two markets is not the market itself, but that people should not be selling these goods in the first place. Even if you get child pornography photos for free, it's wrong to hold them. The mistakes of the child pornography market do not stem from the market, and the root of the problem is that these goods should not exist at all.
Despite the greater controversy surrounding nuclear weapons, we believe that this is the same as the previous example, and that we do not support nuclear weapons. We believe that no State should possess nuclear weapons. But if we are wrong, assuming that relatively peaceful countries such as Britain and France can have nuclear weapons, while Burma and ordinary citizens cannot have nuclear weapons — if that assumption holds — then our view is that Britain and France can sell nuclear weapons to each other, but they cannot sell nuclear weapons to Burma or ordinary citizens.
Therefore, we also agree that the buying and selling behavior in the above two examples is wrong. However, the reason is that it is wrong to possess these items, and this error has nothing to do with the act of buying and selling. It is wrong to have these things, and the immediate consequence is that it is also wrong to buy and sell these things.
Therefore, we endorse the following principles:
Principles of improper possession:
If someone's possession (doing, use) of X is inherently wrong, then (usually) that person's act of buying and selling X is also morally wrong.
As far as we know, in the debate over commodification, the principle of improper appropriation is endorsed by all. According to this principle, then, if someone should not own something at all, then he should not buy or sell it. Because child pornography shouldn't exist, it shouldn't be sold.
A similar example is dog fighting. In order to make the problem clear, let's first reach a consensus: dog fighting is the abuse of dogs, which is wrong. If this consensus holds, then we should agree that people should not sell dogfighting tickets and should not bet on it. However, it should be noted again that the reason why people should not sell tickets for dog fighting is because dog fighting itself should not exist. Even hosting dog fights for free is wrong. Buying tickets by itself doesn't introduce new mistakes for dogfighting.
Or we can give an obvious example: buying a murderer is wrong because the act of killing is itself wrong. In some cases, buying a murderer may exacerbate its mistakes; however, before discussing the buy-in market, killing is itself an impermissible act.
As another example, Michael Sandel has been critical of parents trying to sell their children's naming rights. He worries that the child may be called "Pepsi Peterson" or "Jamba Juice Jones." But, to us and Sandel, the problem here is that the names are humiliating. If so, then parents should not give their children names like this, even if they don't charge money. In this case, the naming market that named the child Pepsico is wrong because it is wrong to name the child Pepsi. The problem here is not the market at all. By contrast, Brennan named his children Aiden and Keaton. Given that he can do this without taking money, it seems to us that he can also take Pepsi's money and give the children the same name.
To take the last example, we should all agree that the following behavior is wrong: students buy papers from the Internet and turn them in on their own behalf. However, the problem here is not in buying papers, but in students plagiarizing papers. We've all seen many examples of students plagiarizing freely available papers. The market for academic fraud is wrong, but that's only because academic fraud is wrong. If students buy papers online without any intention of disseminating them in their own name, then their actions are beyond reproach. But if students disseminate such papers in their own name, even if they are freely available, they are at fault. So imagine if we paid a website to write us a 5-page paper on a stupid topic, like "The Importance of the Purple Fruit," but we didn't intend to submit the paper in our own name, we just wanted to see what they would write; as long as we never submitted the paper in our own name, then the act of buying the paper should be completely fine.
When market critics such as Sandel or Sarts write books about what shouldn't be sold, their intention is to point out what adults can possess, hold, offer, or use but can't be bought or sold or traded. The case they want to discuss is that the market has indeed turned viable activities into cases of wrong behavior. In the case they are trying to point out, the error in buying and selling stems from the buying and selling itself, not from the item being bought and sold.
So, naturally, Sandor thought that you could line up at Disneyland. He even thinks you can take a spot in the line for your kids, and your kids can just be in line at the last minute to go roller coaster rides with you. However, he doesn't want people to sell queuing services. In his opinion, you can line up for free, but you can't sell the position you line up.
Elizabeth Anderson doesn't mind a one-night stand with you for free or helping your infertile sister surrogate for free. But she doesn't want others to sell sex or surrogacy services. In her opinion, you can pay for free, but you can't charge for it, and no one else should buy these services.
If you decide to donate a kidney for a stranger in need for free, Neither Sandor nor Anderson has any objection to it. However, they argue that selling your kidneys shows disrespect for the human body, because the act means that you are only seeing your body as a commodity.
The writers of the Iron Man series decided to let Tony Stark drive an Audi sports car, perhaps because the writers happened to like Audi, or maybe because they thought Tony Stark should drive one, and in short, as long as the writers didn't charge for it, then filmmaker Morgan Spurlock had no problem. But Splock argues that the producer's act of turning the film into paid advertising is problematic.
We do not endorse each of these examples. We'll argue that if you can do something for free, you can sell it.
Errors in certain conditions vs principle errors
Because of some special circumstances, in many cases, it is indeed wrong for some people to buy and sell something that could have been bought and sold. We want to explain here why this does not contradict our argument. In fact, this is just an extension of our argument.
Consider the following two examples:
(1) Profiting with citizenship duty Suppose this is November 8, 2016, U.S. Election Day. Mary wasn't going to vote. Her friend natalie, a longtime activist, told her, "I'll give you $100 and you'll go to the Democratic Party. Mary agreed and voted for the Democrats.
(2) But you promised! Kevin and Jane are working on the move. Kevin wanted to start a courtyard sale to reduce the number of items that needed to be packed. Jane, on the other hand, is a sensual person who wants to keep as much as she can. After discussion, Kevin promised Jane that although he didn't want his vintage cameras anymore, he wouldn't sell any of them. But at the sale, he sold one of them for $50 on Jane's back. Jane never found out about it, but Kevin knew that if Jane knew about it, she would be angry.
Most people believe that the sale in both cases was wrong. They thought It was wrong for Mary to sell ballots, and they also thought it was wrong for Kevin to sell his vintage camera.
However, most also agree that the nature of the two cases is very different. One would say that selling ballot papers is a mistake of principle. Ballot books are things that shouldn't be sold. (We disagree with this view, but here we're just stating what others would think.) ）
By contrast, most people believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with selling vintage cameras. Because Kevin broke his promise, selling the camera became a mistake. While the act of selling cameras is wrong, it is only wrong in a consequential, accidental, conditional situation. In short, in most people's opinion, the difference between these two things is that the ballot paper should not be bought and sold, and except in some special cases, the camera itself can be bought and sold.
Let's look at another example:
(3) Orin, the abuser (in domestic violence), comes to Dick's sporting goods store to buy a baseball bat. He said in a loud voice that he was going to use the bat to beat his cheating girlfriend to death.
Compared to the second case, this case is more similar to the first case. Selling Olin bats was wrong because we all knew Olin intended to use the bat to kill people. The bat itself can be bought and sold; but selling it is a mistake when you know it will be used to harm innocent people.
Look at this example:
(4) Illegally obtained iPad If you are walking on the road, a suspicious person offers to sell you a second-hand iPad at half price. You ask him if it was stolen, and he says, "So what?" Do you really want to? ”
In this example, most people would think it was wrong to buy the iPad, and that it was wrong for a thief to sell the iPad. But the reason is not that the iPad itself should not be sold, but because the iPad is not a thief, and he should not be sold.
Let's look at the last example:
(5) Nate's child was badly injured. However, instead of taking him to the hospital, Nate first spent 1 hour selling his car.
There's nothing wrong with selling a car itself Nate's problem isn't that he's selling something he shouldn't be selling, it's that he had something more important to do than selling a car.
But the perpetrators you promised, the stolen iPads, the injured children, in these few examples, the sale was wrong, but not because they sold something they shouldn't have been sold. In fact, in each of these examples there are other moral obligations, such as the obligation to respect commitments, the obligation not to harm people, the obligation to respect property, the obligation to take care of, and these moral obligations happen to be linked to these transactions or situations. We also acknowledge that these examples are real, and that in these cases it is indeed wrong to buy and sell certain things. Therefore, we acknowledge that in cases 2 to 5, the sale was wrong. So, in that sense, we accept restrictions on the market.
However, call it a limit under certain conditions. In each of these cases, the goods are usually things that can be sold.
In Case 2, Kevin promised to keep these vintage cameras, so he should keep them. There's nothing to explore about. If a person commits not to doing something, almost all actions that would otherwise be feasible will be considered unworkable. We can listen to whipped metal music, but if we have promised our lover to quit it, then it is wrong to listen to these music. This example does not show that audible music is set at any limit, it just shows that commitment can give rise to obligations that do not exist in the first place. As long as you haven't committed not to singing in the shower, then you can do it. As long as you haven't committed to not eating pasta, then you can eat it. As long as you haven't committed to not using a red toothbrush, then you can use it. etcetera.
In Case 3, it would be wrong to even give Olin a bat for free, because Olin would use it to hurt people. In Case 4, even if no money was involved, it was wrong to accept or give away the iPad because the iPad was stolen. In Case 5, even taking the time to give away the car would be wrong, because doing so would mean neglecting the child. But obviously, these are special examples. In these cases, there is nothing inherently wrong with what is being sold, but because of some special circumstances, it is wrong to sell anything in these cases.
In such exceptional cases, almost all otherwise feasible behavior would be considered unfeasible. So, I can listen to the whip metal music, but if the price of listening to the song is to ignore my hungry child, then I can't do it. The crux of the matter here is that there is nothing inherently wrong with listening to the whipping metal music, but my situation is special because at this point I should do something else.
By contrast, when people say that ballots or organs should not be sold, they actually mean that ballot papers or organs themselves should not be sold. Even if we could show that Mary's act of selling her ballot papers to Natalie would not hurt anyone, most people would still think that selling votes was wrong. (We disagree with this view.) ）
Three limits
To sum up, we have discussed three types of restrictions on the market so far:
A. The limitations imposed by the principle of improper possession There are some things that people simply should not have —indeed, some things should not exist at all — so people should not buy and sell them.
B. Restrictions under certain conditions Because of special circumstances, such as certain persons who have promised not to sell certain items, or who are dangerous in these circumstances, or because some people have obligations that require them to do something else than to buy or sell something, then in these cases some person should not sell something, although these things can usually be sold.
C. Inherent Limitations Some things are usually something that people can possess or hold in some way, but these things should not be sold.
To some extent, both A and B are market restrictions, but this approach is neither interesting nor irrelevant.
When anti-commoditization theorists talk about the scope of the market we should limit, they consider neither A nor B, but C.
We accept A and B, but we do not endorse C. We believe that there are no inherent limitations in the market...
-END-
Click to read the original article to open the purchase page
Everybody is watching
Long press the QR code to follow
Make quality thought products
Social Sciences
WeChat: shehuikexuebao
Social Science Daily's official website: http://www.shekebao.com.cn/