Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-xlmdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-08T20:27:33.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Markets Amenable to Consequentialist Evaluation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2024

Luke Semrau
Luke Semrau*
Affiliation:
Bloomsburg University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate over the moral limits of the market. Many participants endorse the plausible idea that a market’s moral status depends, at least in part, on its consequences. For example, Satz holds that markets whose operation undermines citizens’ ability to interact as equals are bad. And Brennan and Jaworski maintain that markets trading in any good or service permissibly possessed may be arranged to operate without bad consequences. This plausible normative claim about markets depends on a descriptive one. Namely, that individual markets have descriptive properties which would provide a suitable basis for their consequentialist evaluation. This descriptive claim, I argue, is false. Markets’ consequences are a joint production. There is no principled means by which the consequences of one may be distinguished from those of another. Thus, the plausible idea is false. A market’s moral status cannot depend on its consequences.

Keywords

moral limits of marketscommodificationmarketsconsequentialism
Type
Article
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , First View , pp. 1 - 17
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Business Ethics

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bastiat, Frédéric. (1850) 1995. “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen.” In Selected Essays on Political Economy, edited by de Huszar, George B., 1–50. Translated by Cain, Seymour. Irving-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education.Google Scholar
Brennan, Jason, and Jaworski, Peter M.. 2016. Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carlson, Erik. 1995. Consequentialism Reconsidered. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danaher, John. 2017. “The Symbolic-Consequences Argument in the Sex Robot Debate.” In Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications, edited by Danaher, John and McArthur, Neil, 103–31. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, Julia. 2012. Consequentialism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Gerald. 1982. “Is More Choice Better Than Less?” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 7 (1): 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., and Honoré, Tony. 1959. Causation in the Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review 35 (4): 519–30.Google Scholar
Kanbur, Ravi. 2004. “On Obnoxious Markets.” In Globalization, Culture, and the Limits of the Market: Essays in Economics and Philosophy, edited by Pattanaik, Prasanta and Cullenberg, Stephen, 39–61. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maguire, Barry, and Brown, Brookes, 2019. “Markets, Interpersonal Practices, and Signal Distortion.” Philosophers’ Imprint 19: 1–16.Google Scholar
Moen, Ole Martin. 2014. “Is Prostitution Harmful?” Journal of Medical Ethics 40: 73–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moriarty, Jeffrey. 2017. “Wanted: Positive Arguments for Markets.” Journal of Value Inquiry 51 (4): 641–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panitch, Vida. 2020. “Liberalism, Commodification, and Justice.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 19 (1): 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radcliffe Richards, Janet, Daar, A. S., Guttmann, R. D., Hoffenberg, R., Kennedy, I., Lock, M., Sells, R. A., and Tilney, N., for the International Forum for Transplant Ethics. 1998. “The Case for Allowing Kidney Sales.” The Lancet 351 (9120): 1950–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, Margaret Jane. 1987. “Market-Inalienability.” Harvard Law Review 100: 1849–1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, Leonard E. 1958. “I, Pencil.” Freeman 8 (12): 32–37.Google Scholar
Satz, Debra. 2010. Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semrau, Luke. 2017. “A Mistake in the Commodification Debate.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 3 (3): 354–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silver, Kenneth. 2023. “Markets Within the Limit of Feasibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 182: 1087–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam. (1776) 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Indianapolis: Liberty Classics.Google Scholar
von Platz, Jeppe. 2017. “Person to Person: A Note on the Ethics of Commodification.” Journal of Value Inquiry 51 (4): 647–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wempe, Ben, and Frooman, Jeff. 2018. “Reframing the Moral Limits of Markets Debate: Social Domains, Values, Allocation Methods.” Journal of Business Ethics 153 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, Bernard. 1973. “A Critique of Utilitarianism.” In Utilitarianism: For and Against, Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, Bernard, 77–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, Jonathan. 2011. Ethics and Public Policy: A Philosophical Inquiry. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zwolinski, Matthew. 2007. “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation.” Business Ethics Quarterly 17 (4): 689–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar