Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13984
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWalsh, Adrian Jen
local.source.editorEditor(s): Hugh LaFolletteen
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-12T11:57:00Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationThe International Encyclopedia of Ethics, p. 905-913en
dc.identifier.isbn9781444367072en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13984-
dc.description.abstractAre there some things that should not be commodified? By "commodification" we mean the process of transforming a good or activity into a commodity available on the market. How extensive should that market be? For instance, should transplant kidneys, water, professional soldiers, or sexual services be available on the market? Are there reasons to prevent the buying and selling of certain kinds of goods or might we permissibly allow the commodification of everything that can be commodified? In recent years a number of philosophers have argued that not everything should be for sale and in this their views reflect the concerns of a significant portion of the general community who find the incursions of the market into everyday life insidious. Such philosophical criticism can be sorted into two main categories. Firstly there are 'moral boundaries theorists' who hold that while markets in general are morally permissible (and even desirable), their range should be restricted. This group is to be contrasted with 'abolitionists' who hold the more radical view that markets should be abolished entirely (although historically significant this latter group is far less common today). At the same time there are many philosophers (and economists) who maintain that the market is the best mechanism for allocating goods and, thus, increasing the range of goods subject to market discipline can only be a good thing. Other philosophers, of a more libertarian bent, have argued that any attempt to restrain market exchanges between competent and consenting adults represents an unjustifiable attack upon human freedom (see libertarianism).en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Ltden
dc.relation.ispartofThe International Encyclopedia of Ethicsen
dc.relation.isversionof1en
dc.titleCommodificationen
dc.typeEntry In Reference Worken
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee712en
dc.subject.keywordsBusiness Ethicsen
dc.subject.keywordsSocial Philosophyen
local.contributor.firstnameAdrian Jen
local.subject.for2008220319 Social Philosophyen
local.subject.for2008220102 Business Ethicsen
local.subject.seo2008970122 Expanding Knowledge in Philosophy and Religious Studiesen
local.profile.schoolSchool of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciencesen
local.profile.emailawalsh@une.edu.auen
local.output.categoryNen
local.record.placeauen
local.record.institutionUniversity of New Englanden
local.identifier.epublicationsrecordune-20140120-210048en
local.publisher.placeMalden, United States of Americaen
local.format.startpage905en
local.format.endpage913en
local.contributor.lastnameWalshen
dc.identifier.staffune-id:awalshen
local.profile.orcid0000-0002-1959-254Xen
local.profile.roleauthoren
local.identifier.unepublicationidune:14197en
dc.identifier.academiclevelAcademicen
local.title.maintitleCommodificationen
local.output.categorydescriptionN Entry In Reference Worken
local.search.authorWalsh, Adrian Jen
local.uneassociationUnknownen
local.year.published2013en
local.subject.for2020500321 Social and political philosophyen
local.subject.for2020500102 Business ethicsen
local.subject.seo2020280119 Expanding knowledge in philosophy and religious studiesen
Appears in Collections:Entry In Reference Work
Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

2,126
checked on May 7, 2023
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.