Markets with limits - Interpersonality and autonomy in the context of markets.
(2025) FPRK01 20242Practical Philosophy
- Abstract
- This thesis explores the philosophical implications of commodification, focusing on the claim made by Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski in Markets Without Limits (2013) that ”if you can have it, you can buy it; if you can give it away, you can sell it.” Their thesis argues for the moral permissibility of commodifying any good or service that is already permissible to exchange without monetary compensation. They evaluate the arguments by examining three major objections to commodification: semiotic objections, corruption concerns, and issues of exploitation, harm, and misallocation.
We conclude that Brennan and Jaworski’s arguments suffer from not only logical fallacies but also problems of ambiguity and burden of proof. Special attention... (More) - This thesis explores the philosophical implications of commodification, focusing on the claim made by Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski in Markets Without Limits (2013) that ”if you can have it, you can buy it; if you can give it away, you can sell it.” Their thesis argues for the moral permissibility of commodifying any good or service that is already permissible to exchange without monetary compensation. They evaluate the arguments by examining three major objections to commodification: semiotic objections, corruption concerns, and issues of exploitation, harm, and misallocation.
We conclude that Brennan and Jaworski’s arguments suffer from not only logical fallacies but also problems of ambiguity and burden of proof. Special attention is given to Elizabeth Anderson’s mere commodity objection, which according to them asserts that commodification can diminish the intrinsic value of certain goods and distort the norms governing their proper valuation. The thesis further highlights Brennan and Jaworski’s failure to accurately represent Anderson’s objection and adequately address the moral and interpersonal dimensions of markets as part of the interpersonal objection. It aims to demonstrate how commodification relates to persons and undermines democratic principles. This is discussed in the context of vote selling.
Ultimately, this thesis argues that markets, while effective tools for resource allocation, are not morally neutral. It defends the view that some goods and relationships must remain outside the market to preserve autonomy, dignity, and social cohesion. By critiquing the assumptions and defenses of Brennan and Jaworski, this work supports the anti-commodification stance, emphasising the ethical necessity of maintaining clear boundaries for markets in modern societies. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9211645
- author
- Tjerneld, Jacob LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- FPRK01 20242
- year
- 2025
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Commodification ethics, Practical philosophy, Interpersonality, Autonomy, Market ethics, Market
- language
- English
- id
- 9211645
- date added to LUP
- 2025-09-16 11:08:25
- date last changed
- 2025-09-16 11:08:25
@misc{9211645,
abstract = {{This thesis explores the philosophical implications of commodification, focusing on the claim made by Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski in Markets Without Limits (2013) that ”if you can have it, you can buy it; if you can give it away, you can sell it.” Their thesis argues for the moral permissibility of commodifying any good or service that is already permissible to exchange without monetary compensation. They evaluate the arguments by examining three major objections to commodification: semiotic objections, corruption concerns, and issues of exploitation, harm, and misallocation.
We conclude that Brennan and Jaworski’s arguments suffer from not only logical fallacies but also problems of ambiguity and burden of proof. Special attention is given to Elizabeth Anderson’s mere commodity objection, which according to them asserts that commodification can diminish the intrinsic value of certain goods and distort the norms governing their proper valuation. The thesis further highlights Brennan and Jaworski’s failure to accurately represent Anderson’s objection and adequately address the moral and interpersonal dimensions of markets as part of the interpersonal objection. It aims to demonstrate how commodification relates to persons and undermines democratic principles. This is discussed in the context of vote selling.
Ultimately, this thesis argues that markets, while effective tools for resource allocation, are not morally neutral. It defends the view that some goods and relationships must remain outside the market to preserve autonomy, dignity, and social cohesion. By critiquing the assumptions and defenses of Brennan and Jaworski, this work supports the anti-commodification stance, emphasising the ethical necessity of maintaining clear boundaries for markets in modern societies.}},
author = {{Tjerneld, Jacob}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Markets with limits - Interpersonality and autonomy in the context of markets.}},
year = {{2025}},
}