Case 2: Justin

Possible Question: Would instigating a system of monetary compensation for bone barrow be
an ethical practice?
Thesis: No it would not be an ethical practice for two reasons: 1) any utilitarian benefit would
be frustrated because it propagates and relies on a background of inequality. 2) This practice
would lead to a degradation of the respect for the human body.
Key Concepts:
Exchange/Consent: Not all exchange is equal. Some situations of exchange rely on a
inequality of bargaining strength in the exchange. Situations like this are: coercive offers.
Non-Market Norms: Ideas of what one ought to do outside of market reasoning. Examples:
civic duty, family relations etc.
Markets as more than a mechanism: The largest assumption of the opposing team is that a
market is just a mechanism; it only creates a new means for the distribution of goods; it
does not change the object being sold. We argue that a market has its own set of norms and
this can crowd out non-market norms.
Competing Ideas in Pro and Con: On the one hand, we have a utilitarian calculus that would
state that merely introducing a market for the bone marrow does nothing to good and it would
allow more people receive the marrow. On the other hand, there is a suspicion on the
considerations of exchange and markets, and that ultimately it treats the human body as a
means toward and end which violates a Kantian Ideal.
Pro: (Andrew) - In a utilitarian calculus (all good actions produce the greatest amount of
happiness) this would be a good thing because it allows more bone marrow to come into the
system, which in turn means that there will be more people who receive it. Lets grant that
market changes the good. If Im dying, I dont care about your motives. I care about my life and
whatever gets me (and others) the things I need that is the best solution. What is our goal
here? If it is to save lives and increase societal well-being, the market is the best way to do this.
It benefits the people who give because they are compensated and those looking for bone
marrow.
Con: (Following Sandel in What Money Cannot Buy)
Inequality: (Madison) The utilitarian calculus takes too much for granted in its reasoning.
It does not fully take into account the background of inequality in this scenario which alters
the concept of exchange that occurs here. The exchange relies on the poor taking the risk of
donation for the benefit of those who can pay for the donation.
Corruption: (Justin) Further, there is the idea of introducing a market reasoning here leads
to the corruption of the respect for the human body, which is a violation of a Kantian Ideal
(Treat all humans as ends in themselves). (Pro response: No, it does not, markets are value
neutral). Markets are more than mechanisms and can crowd out non-market norms. Dating
thought experiment; Switzerland case study. (Tangential: Virtue is not a finite commodity)
Case 10:Justin
Possible Question: Who, if anyone, is responsible for the betterment of the working
environments of the Bangladesh? Or, Is ethical consumerism morally obligatory?
Thesis: Everyone is, from the individual consumer, the nation and international organizations
like WTO. Or, yes, it is obligatory because we cannot consider our purchase alone and
separately the impacts of our purchase.
Key Concepts:
Conspicuous Consumption (Veblin Theory of the Leisure Class): Our consumption is
intimately how I exhibit my character and how I see myself i.e. I will buy a Red Sox shirt to
show my support for them.
A-D Structure of Action (Ansombe Intention): In all action, for ends that I will, there are
also necessary means toward that end. If I were to reject those means, then I would in
essence reject the end and show that I do not truly will it.
It is not clear that Globalization Increases or Decreses wealth inequality: Three separate
studies found three separate things: National Bureau of Econ. Research showed it
increased, but it could have been worse. The World Bank concluded at in the short run, it
appears to increase. The Human Development Report from Norwegian team showed that it
decreased (But the info is hard; we need household data but cannot get it)
Income inequality is not indicative of a question of worse off: Income inequality can
theoretically show an increase in inequality but still can be better off. What matters is
people welfare, not the gap.
Competing Ideas of the Pro and Con: On the one hand, we have the idea that a rising tide
floats all ships. These people are in a better position now than they were and things will
improve through the passage of time. On the other hand, we can acknowledge that these
people are in a better position, but still state that there position is still unethical treatment and
they we are required to help them.
Con (Andrew): Ultimately, these people are in a better work environment than they would be if
we were to stop supporting these corporations. The workers would be forced to find much
worse places to work. Further, through our continued support of these companies, eventually
the working conditions will improve. Lastly, ethical consumerism places on the individual a high
amount of accountability for their purchases and requires them to be informed on their
purchases. If this level of is infeasible, then ethical consumerism is impossible and cannot be
obligatory. IT will get better for them eventually. The burden of information could be too high.
ITs unrealistic for the consumer, in a globalized economy, the supply chains are too great. At
what point does it end? The yarn where its spun, the cotton growers, the people transporting it
on the ship. There are so many aspects to the production of a good that it is an unreasonable
expectation. This is based in real life, the real world we face.
Pro (Madison): It is a false dilemma to state that either we continue our support of these
corporations and things will get better eventually, or we stop our support which will lead to
them potentially being in worse scenarios. We can both acknowledge that the workers are in
better scenarios than they could possibly be, and state that their workplaces are still unethical.
Something is not made ethical by it being better than a worse scenario; rather it is made ethical
by it conforming to our vision of the human good. This is a case where we can see that it does
not conform to our vision of the human good.
Pro (Justin): Our purchases demonstrate the kinds of goods that we wish to support and how
we see our own character. We see that our purchases directly support the activities of a
corporation. There are various means that we can become informed about the impacts of our
support. If we claim that we wish to support ethical consumerism, but reject the requirement
to become informed on our purchases, then we do not truly wish to support it.