Revising chapter 2, I came accross this question : "What are the channels through which markets affect morality? "
First of all, it calls my attention when we talk about organs, and its moral dilemma on who should get them?, How can we arrange the waiting list?, and in the case where people has a living donor but they’re not compatible, why wouldn’t they exchange?
I mean, first of all “markets are institutions where sellers and buyers interact and can trade items”. So, why there is no an organ market?
I know there are many reasons to argue the No answer, but there are some authors that claim yes.
Actually there’s a paper that discuss this posibility. “The Case for Allowing Kidney Sales” Radcliffe Richards et al. (1998, 1950) from here I quote: “It must be stressed that we are not arguing for the positive conclusion that organ sales must always be acceptable, let alone that there should be an unfettered market.” NOTE here that it is still regulated.
Having an open mind considering an unfettered market for organ sale, as saving lives is a good end and organ sale is then defensible as a means of achieving that positive end.
Many authors have pointed out that there appears to be no fundamental difference between selling organs and other widely accepted practices, particularly selling one’s own ‘risky labour’ (work that involves a risk of harm that is the same as or greater than that involved in organ donation) (Harris 1985; Brecher 1990, 1994; Wilkinson & Garrard 1996).
As long as we can keep debating the topic, I guess the Issue here is that markets don’t have a philosophical point of view, and if we’re not willing markets to reach some spheres of life we might need to use morals, and philosophy to stablish “limits”.
feel free to disagree.
https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archives/spr2015/entries/organs-sale/#ArgBasPriResForAutLibNotSelOwn : ** recommended reading
Roth Alvin. “Who Gets What and why?”. 2015.