Question
FAST ANSWERS_PHD
3-21.pptxBusiness Ethics Summer 2022 (1) Week 3, Lecture 2
Chaeyoung Paek
In today’s class…
We’ll look how Elizabeth Anderson argues against commodifying certain type of goods—what she calls as “shared goods.”
There will be no in-class activity.
Sandel on Commodifying (almost all) Things
Just like Sandel, Anderson argues that there are certain kinds of things that are de-valued when commodified.
A quick recap on Sandel:
Commodifying something may corrupt its inherent value, because the market treats commodities with a certain attitude.
Specifically, the market treats commodities purely as objects of use and for profit.
But when we treat things with inherent value (e.g., voting rights) as mere objects of use & for profit, they get de-valued.
Three Kinds of Goods
Anderson distinguishes three different kinds of goods; each kind of goods has a specific mode of valuation.
Economic goods (commodities), valued by its use.
Shared goods, valued by its gift value within a personal relationship
Political goods, valued by its promotion of democratic freedom in a fraternal relation
Anderson argues that using inappropriate mode of valuation for shared goods/political goods de-value them.
Economic Goods & Their Value
A thing is an economic good if its exchange is governed by norms of market relation, and its value can be fully realized through use.
(ex) Parking spot
The norms of market relation
: The market relation should…
(a) be impersonal; (b) guarantee freedom of pursuing one’s self-interest; (c) trade exclusive things; (d) respond to “effective demands”; (e) express concerns by ”exit.”
Economic Goods & Their Value
The mode of valuation for economic goods: Use
Kant’s distinction between ends & means
Treating X as an end is to treat X as something that is inherently valuable.
Merely using X (as a means) is to subordinate X to one’s own ends.
(ex) An old toy
An economic good is valued based on what use it has for the potential customer.
The use value is impersonal; no use value of a commodity is unique to a certain customer.
Shared Goods & Their Value
A thing is a shared good if its exchange is governed by norms of personal relationship, and its value can be fully realized as gift in that personal relationship.
(ex) Keeping your promise to your significant other
The norms of personal relationship
: Intimacy & commitment
The exchange of shared goods must promote intimacy between the agents.
The exchange of shared goods must sustain the commitment between the agents.
Shared Goods & Their Value
The mode of valuation for economic goods: Gift value
X is valuable as a gift if X affirms and continues the ties that hold the recipient and the donor together.
(ex) Birthday gift exchange between friends
Gift value is determined by the relationship & the agents’ understanding of the relationship.
Gift value of X partially consists in the facts that both enjoy X in the same way; in this respect, gift value is uniquely reciprocal.
Can we commodify shared goods?
(Anderson) Commodifying shared goods de-value shared goods.
When commodified, shared goods cannot be valued as the things that affirm and continue the tie between the agents.
1st de-valuation
When commodified, shared goods cannot be valued in the same way by both parties.
2nd de-valuation
Can we commodify shared goods?
An example: Prostitution
(Anderson) Sex is a shared good; both partners enjoy and appreciate the same act based on how it affirms and continues their relationship.
But when sex is commodified, it is de-valued in two ways:
Sex loses its gift value as a thing that affirms and continues the tie between the partners.
Sex loses its gift value as a thing that is enjoyed in the same way by the recipient and the donor.
Can we commodify shared goods?
Anderson further argues that commodifying shared goods corrupts not just shared goods but the gift values they have.
The gift values that shared goods have are inherently valuable; they allow our society to flourish.
(ex) Gratitude, loyalty, love, friendship
Commodifying shared goods makes us neglect such values, which is a huge loss for our society.
Political Goods & Their Value
A thing is a political good if it’s exchange is governed by the norms of fraternal relation, and its value is determined by how it promotes democratic freedom.
Cf. Political goods ≈ Public goods
Political goods are valued in fraternal relations.
- In a fraternal relation, citizens (a) refrain from pursuing their own interest at the expense of the less well-off & (b) distribute certain goods based on needs instead of wants.
(ex) Food bank/Public education
Political Goods & Their Value
Political goods are valued by measuring how well it promotes democratic freedom.
Democratic freedom is promoted when citizens are equals engaged in a common cooperative project.
(ex) Voting
Citizens can promote democratic freedom only when each citizen has certain necessary goods (e.g., education).
Fraternal relations distribute these necessary goods based on needs of each citizen.
Can we commodify political goods?
(Anderson) If we commodify political goods, they are de-valued.
When commodified, political goods cannot be enjoyed in a non-exclusive way.
1st de-valuation
When commodified, political goods cannot promote democratic freedom.
2nd de-valuation
Can we commodify political goods?
An example: Privatizing public parks
(Anderson) Public parks are political goods; they are secured though observing people’s needs and distributing the benefits in a way that promotes fraternal relation among citizens.
Some people believe that privatizing public parks promotes more freedom; namely, freedom to opt out of paying for parks or roads that they do not use frequently.
Can we commodify political goods?
Anderson claims that when public parks are commodified, they are de-valued in two ways:
When commodified, public parks become exclusive goods for people who paid for them.
Because public parks become exclusive to those who paid for them, they can no longer promote democratic freedom.
Can we commodify shared goods?
Anderson further points out that arguments for privatizing public parks are missing one thing.
Such arguments claim that by commodifying political goods, we can increase individual freedom.
But individual freedom can be decreased by privatizing political goods; there are individual freedoms that can only be exercised in spaces over which no one has more control than the others.
Anderson’s Conclusion
Anderson concludes that shared goods and political goods should not be commodified.
When they are exchanged based on the norms of the market, they lose their unique values.
The values they promote are the things that allow humanity to flourish; by commodifying these goods, we neglect these values and let the norms of the market relation be the general norms of the society.
Some remaining thoughts
Anderson says commodifying shared goods or political goods is ethically problematic; would it be possible to treat commodities as shared goods or political goods, and if it is, would it be ethically wrong to do so?
Anderson claims that selling sex is ethically wrong because it strips a shared good (sex) off of its unique gift value. But maybe it depends on how one views her/his own body and sexuality?
Does Anderson mean that there is only one (ethical) way to view one’s own body and sexuality?
For the next class…
Read Anderson, “Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?”
