ABSTRACT
The authors have examined dozens of supposedly noxious or repugnant markets, and dozens of arguments purporting to show that these markets are immoral. After explaining specifically why they are skeptical of particular anti-commodification arguments, they laid out general grounds for skepticism. They argued that many times when anti-commodification theorists complain about a market in some good, they are merely complaining about the particular form of that market. They worry that many anti-commodification theorists are reifying disgust reactions, or that they are skeptical of markets in general because we human beings were not designed to live in market societies. A few years ago, Michael Sandel wrote the lead essay in a Boston Review debate about commodification. He said that markets crowd out morals and make us more selfish and corrupt. Herbert Gintis pointed out that Sandel not only lacked evidence for this claim, but, contrary to Sandel, the available evidence strongly indicates Sandel is wrong.
