PHIL 2600 Assignment 2 | Tulane University
- Tulane University / PHIL 2600
- 21 Dec 2021
- Price: $10
- Humanities Assignment Help / Philosophy
PHIL 2600 Assignment 2 | Tulane University
SWA #2
-Your response
should be around 1,000 words, double spaced, and have a title.
-When quoting a
direct passage or idea from someone else, please cite page numbers.
-You do not
need a reference page if you are only citing the articles that we discussed in
class.
-This is a
group assignment. Include the names of all group members who worked on the
paper on the assignment. However, if you wish, you may work alone and write
your own paper instead. If you choose this option, you need to let me know via
email by 10/26.
-This
assignment is due via Canvas on 11/2 at 10am. Late assignments will be
penalized 2 points for each day that they are late. Thus, a paper turned in
after 10am on 11/2 will be penalized two points. A paper turned in on 11/3 will
be penalized 4 points and so on.
Prompt
Satz notes that
“Societies sometimes ban the sale of goods whose supply they actually wish to
support or encourage” (189). For example, we want people to vote, adopt
children, and donate organs but ban markets in the buying and selling of votes,
children, and kidneys. There are many possible moral objections to the
commodification of these and other repugnant goods (see Roth 39 for a list of
goods whose markets are or were once constrained by such factors). Pick ONE such
good (for example, surrogacy, kidneys, sex, votes, etc.). Next, argue whether
this good should be for sale. Perhaps you think that there are ethical problems
with the sale of this good (for example, worries about coercion, corruption, or
harm to third parties) that are serious enough to make the sale of the good
legally impermissible. Alternatively, you might argue that these ethical
concerns are overblown, false, or could be mitigated via a regulated market.
You might even think that certain harms come about if the good is not allowed
to be for sale. If you argue for this position, you should note if there are
any restrictions that should be placed on this market. For example, you might
think that it is ethically and legally permissible to sell kidneys but—unlike
the selling of apples or cars—the kidney market needs to be highly regulated to
avoid worries about, say, coercion. Alternatively, you might think that the best
way to allocate kidneys is via a free market. See Satz (204), for a possibly
helpful diagram on possible methods of organ allocation.
Jesse
USA 
India