Average Reviews:
(More customer reviews)Radin deals thoughtfully with some virgin territory in legal and social theory -- the question of what theoretical grounds might underlie the common intuition that some valued (indeed cherished) things should be treated by the law as (in whole or in part) "not for sale." Such items as children, body parts, sexual relations, votes, opinions, and the like are among the candidates for this status, and many things that are traded on markets have commerce in them restricted for reasons that relate neither to market efficiency nor fair distribution, but rather to the transformation in meaning (and ultimately value) that can occur when it something is treated as a commodity. Radin's discussion of these novel issues does not resolve them in any simple way, but better than anything else on the subject reveals how sticky they can be. T. Gre
Click Here to see more reviews about: Contested Commodities
Not only are there willing buyers for body parts or babies, Radin observes, but some desperately poor people would be willing sellers, while better-off people find such trades abhorrent. Radin observes that many such areas of contested commodification reflect a persistent dilemma in liberal society: we value freedom of choice and simultaneously believe that choices ought to be restricted to protect the integrity of what it means to be a person. She views this tension as primarily the result of underlying social and economic inequality, which need not reflect an irreconcilable conflict in the premises of liberal democracy.
As a philosophical pragmatist, the author therefore argues for a conception of incomplete commodification, in which some contested things can be bought and sold, but only under carefully regulated circumstances. Such a regulatory regime both symbolizes the importance of nonmarket value to personhood and aspires to ameliorate the underlying conditions of inequality.
No comments:
Post a Comment