I have research interests in moral philosophy, broadly construed.

Applied Ethics 

Kidney Markets

We have literally almost twice as many kidneys as we need. Nearly everyone has an extra they wouldn’t notice missing. That’s a miracle of nature. Skilled doctors can safely transplant these otherwise useless kidneys into the bodies of those who need them. That’s a miracle of medicine. So, why do so many people die each year for want of a functioning kidney? 

Federal law prohibits the exchange of human organs for ‘valuable consideration’. Kidney sales are illegal. You are permitted to save a life if you freely give up your spare. But you are not permitted to save a life if you require compensation. This has resulted in a persistent shortage of transplantable kidneys and much avoidable suffering. 

The law should change. It’s morally imperative that we introduce a regulated kidney market. Here’s a sketch of a promising proposal: 

The means by which kidneys are allocated to transplant recipients, according to medical need, not ability to pay, would not change. The market would be monopsonistic, with the government as the sole buyer. The payment would be high. Evidence suggests $100,000 would still save money as compared to dialysis under the status quo. People from a range of economic strata will find this option attractive. The competition to vend will be fierce. Only the healthiest candidates will have a chance. Relative to the population, kidney sales will be extremely uncommon. Just like donors, vendors will give informed consent, and receive expert treatment and follow-up medical care. 

Of course transplant recipients and vendors will benefit. But there’s another class of market beneficiaries: would-be donors. Their family member in need of a transplant gets a kidney from a healthy vendor. We know this outcome is extremely valuable to these people as they were prepared to undergo nephrectomy to bring it about.   

I’ve argued in a series of papers that given the tremendous welfare benefits to be had and the lack of any compelling countervailing reasons, we must permit regulated kidney sales.  

My work on this topic appears in Public Affairs Quarterly, Journal of Medical Ethics, Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, Bioethics, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, and American Journal of Transplantation.

The Moral Limits of the Market

Are there some things that shouldn’t be for sale? This question has provoked considerable philosophical debate. Some answer Yes, though they disagree about why. Maybe bad markets are bad because their operation undermines citizens’ equal status. Or maybe they’re bad because they violate certain principles of justice. Or maybe it’s a matter of the attitudes they encourage. Maybe bad markets are bad because they distort goods’ social meanings. Others, perhaps interpreting the question differently, answer No. They claim that any good permissibly possessed may be, in some circumstances, permissibly bought and sold.

Despite the disagreement, participants in the debate proceed on a shared assumption. All agree that specific markets are morally assessable. All agree that individual markets have descriptive properties which provide for their evaluation. I have argued that this assumption is false. If that’s right, then existing theories of the market’s moral limits must be revised or rejected. My work on this topic appears in Business Ethics Quarterly and Journal of the American Philosophical Association.

If specific markets aren’t morally assessable, how should we think about the moral limits of the market? My most recent work seeks an answer.

Ethical Theory

Consequentialism’s Compelling Idea – roughly, the idea that it is always permissible to bring about the best outcome – is aptly named. I find it hard to deny. But once you accept it, it’s hard to avoid accepting other less intuitive commitments. I ended up as a utilitarian. 

I have written about consequentialism and adjacent topics in a series of papers coauthored with Andrew T. Forcehimes. Our work appears in Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Philosophia, Journal of the American Philosophical Association, Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Social Theory and Practice, and Journal of Applied Philosophy. We also have a book, published with Hackett, titled Thinking Through Utilitarianism: A Guide to Contemporary Arguments.