Are markets amenable to consequentialist evaluation?
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 b...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Business ethics quarterly
Year: 2025, Volume: 35, Issue: 3, Pages: 423-439 |
| Further subjects: | B
moral limits of markets
B Aufsatz in Zeitschrift B Markets B Consequentialism B Commodification |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2153-3326 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Business ethics quarterly
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/beq.2024.13 |
