Definitely agree. The anti-market attitudes and the feelings about "exploitation" are often very destructive. They result in all kinds of bad economic policy. Although we have some slight differences in ethical viewpoints, challenge trials and kidney sales are a no-brainer for me too. It respects people's natural right to bodily autonomy, and they would have full consent, and it would save lives. Something like "exploitation" doesn't weigh very heavily in my mind. I've written on kidney sales and the FDA [1][2]
I don't think examples you make have much to do with ethics as solutions/constraints (or you may say deontology/consequentialism); it seems those are just misguided ethical principles. E.g. none of those constraints are acceptable on libertarian views of ethics, as they unjustly restrict human freedom.
Neither do ethics based on constraints necessarily imply that the status quo is generally acceptable: taking animal rights into account, the status quo is horrifying and on-par with slave societies.
Framing this as solutions vs. constraints seems odd. All the examples provided involve constraints, but some seem more acceptable (informed consent) than others (paternalistic elitism).
When people think of morality they are not always thinking of the same thing. The sort of commitments we have or obligations we feel differ when we are considering what we owe other individuals and when we are looking for solutions. Although these can come into conflict, I don’t think we can exclude either from the sphere of moral reasoning. Instead, we need to try to find a coherent generalization.
I often am reminded of Bernard Gert when reading this blog. Gert had some interesting ideas about the necessity of simple public rules, but combined with a mechanism for determining when to make exceptions to the rules - briefly, someone who has made or wishes to make an exception must do so publicly and defend their actions.
Definitely agree. The anti-market attitudes and the feelings about "exploitation" are often very destructive. They result in all kinds of bad economic policy. Although we have some slight differences in ethical viewpoints, challenge trials and kidney sales are a no-brainer for me too. It respects people's natural right to bodily autonomy, and they would have full consent, and it would save lives. Something like "exploitation" doesn't weigh very heavily in my mind. I've written on kidney sales and the FDA [1][2]
[1] https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/organ-sales-an-illustrative-example
[2] https://parrhesia.substack.com/p/witholding
I don't think examples you make have much to do with ethics as solutions/constraints (or you may say deontology/consequentialism); it seems those are just misguided ethical principles. E.g. none of those constraints are acceptable on libertarian views of ethics, as they unjustly restrict human freedom.
Neither do ethics based on constraints necessarily imply that the status quo is generally acceptable: taking animal rights into account, the status quo is horrifying and on-par with slave societies.
Framing this as solutions vs. constraints seems odd. All the examples provided involve constraints, but some seem more acceptable (informed consent) than others (paternalistic elitism).
When people think of morality they are not always thinking of the same thing. The sort of commitments we have or obligations we feel differ when we are considering what we owe other individuals and when we are looking for solutions. Although these can come into conflict, I don’t think we can exclude either from the sphere of moral reasoning. Instead, we need to try to find a coherent generalization.
I often am reminded of Bernard Gert when reading this blog. Gert had some interesting ideas about the necessity of simple public rules, but combined with a mechanism for determining when to make exceptions to the rules - briefly, someone who has made or wishes to make an exception must do so publicly and defend their actions.