Markets and Morals

Ng, Yew‐Kwang

doi:10.1017/9781108163828

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 261 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, the trade-off at hand is not preserving the seller’s dignity versus saving lives; rather, it is preserving the seller’s dignity versus preserving the patient’s dignity who, due to the moral prejudice of third parties, is not provided with a donor’s kidney as early as possible and whose life is thus wilfully endangered. In effect, therefore, we agree with Ng ( 2019 , 62) that “[s]ympathy should be directed to both sides.”…”

Section: Criticizing the Status-quo Reliance On Altruismsupporting

confidence: 85%

The Morality of Kidney Sales: When Caring for the Seller’s Dignity Has Moral Costs

Reese

Pies

2023

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kidney markets are prohibited in principle because they are assumed to undermine the seller’s dignity. Considering the trade-off between saving more lives by introducing regulated kidney markets and preserving the seller’s dignity, we argue that it is advisable to demand that citizens restrain their own moral judgements and not interfere with the judgements of those who are willing to sell a kidney. We also argue that it is advisable not only to limit the political implications of the moral argument of dignity concerns toward a market-based solution but also to re-evaluate the dignity argument itself. First, if the dignity argument is to be given normative force, it must also consider the dignity violation of the potential transplant recipient. Second, there seems to be no compelling notion of dignity that demonstrates why it is morally permissible to donate but not to sell a kidney.

show abstract

Section: Criticizing the Status-quo Reliance On Altruismsupporting

confidence: 85%

The Morality of Kidney Sales: When Caring for the Seller’s Dignity Has Moral Costs

Reese

Pies

2023

Bioethical Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Animal Welfare: Beyond Human Happiness

2021

Happiness—Concept, Measurement and Promotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For animals capable of affective feelings (enjoyment and suffering), we should also be concerned with their welfare. Welfare biology studies at least three basic questions: Which (species are capable of welfare)? Whether (their welfare is positive)? How (to increase their welfare? As affective feelings entail energy costs, species not capable of making flexible choices are not capable of affective feelings. The fact that members of most species either starve to death or are eaten before successful mating, their net welfare is likely negative. We could decrease animal suffering by banning pointless cruelty and making the living conditions of our farmed animals better (like increasing cage sizes of chicken farming). However, the widespread reduction of extensive animal suffering including wild animals will largely have to be left after our significant scientific/technological, economic, and moral advances. Excessively strict guidelines on animal experimentation that inhibit scientific/technological advances may thus be counter-productive in animal salvation in the long run.

show abstract

Reassessing Academic Plagiarism

Taylor

2023

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Markets and Morals

Cited by 6 publications

References 261 publications

The Morality of Kidney Sales: When Caring for the Seller’s Dignity Has Moral Costs

The Morality of Kidney Sales: When Caring for the Seller’s Dignity Has Moral Costs

Animal Welfare: Beyond Human Happiness

Reassessing Academic Plagiarism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About