SANDEL, SEMIOTICS, AND MONEY-BASED EXCHANGE

In: Public affairs quarterly: PAQ ; philosophical studies of public policy issues, Volume 33, Issue 2, p. 159-176

Abstract

Abstract
Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski have recently developed an increasingly influential argument against semiotic objections to commodification. A semiotic argument is one that holds that the commodification of certain goods or services is morally wrong, either because it violates the social meaning of those goods or services, or because the market exchange of them would communicate something wrongful. Brennan and Jaworski focus much of their attention on showing that Michael Sandel's deployment of such arguments fails. However, their argument does not undermine Sandel's position because they have fundamentally misunderstood his view. But this misunderstanding is productive, for it can be used both to clarify the nature of the debates over the moral limits of markets and to gain a better understanding of an underexplored criticism of money-based exchange.