Can’t Buy Me Love

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Critics of commodification often claim that the buying and selling of some good communicates disrespect or some other inappropriate attitude. Such semiotic critiques have been leveled against markets in sex, pornography, kidneys, surrogacy, blood, and many other things. Brennan and Jaworski (2015a) have recently argued that all such objections fail. They claim that the meaning of a market transaction is a highly contingent, socially constructed fact. If allowing a market for one of these goods can improve the supply, access or quality of the good, then instead of banning the market on semiotic grounds, they urge that we should revise our semiotics. In this reply, I isolate a part of the meaning of a market transaction that is not socially constructed: our market exchanges always express preferences. I then show how cogent semiotic critiques of some markets can be constructed on the basis of this fact.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2017-04-27
Latest version: 1 (2017-05-21)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Markets Without Symbolic Limits.Brennan, Jason & Jaworski, Peter Martin
The Ethics of Voting.Brennan, Jason

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Come On, Come On, Love Me for the Money.Brennan, Jason & Jaworski, Peter M.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
252 ( #17,235 of 48,871 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
68 ( #8,930 of 48,871 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.