PANEL 21 / LIMITS OF MARKETS
CONVENORS: HUUB BROUWER, FRIEDEMANN BIEBER
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected].
Existing moral limits to markets frameworks frequently centre on three objections, which are well-rehearsed in the philosophical literature (Anderson 1993; Sandel 2012; Satz 2010):
(1) the coercion objection holds that people's agreement to a market transaction may not be voluntary (Sandel 2012, 111; Satz 2010, 94-99). This can occur for two main reasons. First, people may be coerced when they are in positions of extreme vulnerability, for instance because they are destitute and don’t have any other options to earn money then to sell something they are not willing to sell. Second, people can be coerced when they suffer from weak agency, for instance because they don’t have enough knowledge about the good being exchanged or are not autonomous (Satz 2010, 94-99).
(2) the corruption of meaning objection holds that the commodification of particular moral and civic goods could undermine (/corrupt) their meaning (Sandel 2012, 111; Anderson 1990, 186). The value of a Nobel prize would, for instance, greatly diminish if it could be bought on the market, rather than being awarded to people based on their outstanding achievements.
(3) the democratic equality objection holds that the commodification of certain goods can (significantly) undermine people’s capacity to relate to each other as equals, and thereby have harmful consequences for society and for individuals (Satz 2010; Anderson 1993).
The central question of this panel is whether these three central concerns are still adequate for thinking about the moral limits to markets in times of digitalization and population ageing. We will consider whether existing frameworks can plausibly accommodate moral concerns about positional goods competition, derivative markets (such as prediction markets), and labor markets in (highly) socially valuable work with labor shortages. We believe that existing frameworks should be extended, and hope that the panel will contribute to finding out which extensions are necessary.
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected] and [email protected].
Existing moral limits to markets frameworks frequently centre on three objections, which are well-rehearsed in the philosophical literature (Anderson 1993; Sandel 2012; Satz 2010):
(1) the coercion objection holds that people's agreement to a market transaction may not be voluntary (Sandel 2012, 111; Satz 2010, 94-99). This can occur for two main reasons. First, people may be coerced when they are in positions of extreme vulnerability, for instance because they are destitute and don’t have any other options to earn money then to sell something they are not willing to sell. Second, people can be coerced when they suffer from weak agency, for instance because they don’t have enough knowledge about the good being exchanged or are not autonomous (Satz 2010, 94-99).
(2) the corruption of meaning objection holds that the commodification of particular moral and civic goods could undermine (/corrupt) their meaning (Sandel 2012, 111; Anderson 1990, 186). The value of a Nobel prize would, for instance, greatly diminish if it could be bought on the market, rather than being awarded to people based on their outstanding achievements.
(3) the democratic equality objection holds that the commodification of certain goods can (significantly) undermine people’s capacity to relate to each other as equals, and thereby have harmful consequences for society and for individuals (Satz 2010; Anderson 1993).
The central question of this panel is whether these three central concerns are still adequate for thinking about the moral limits to markets in times of digitalization and population ageing. We will consider whether existing frameworks can plausibly accommodate moral concerns about positional goods competition, derivative markets (such as prediction markets), and labor markets in (highly) socially valuable work with labor shortages. We believe that existing frameworks should be extended, and hope that the panel will contribute to finding out which extensions are necessary.
