I’m currently reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. Although I am still in the early stages of engaging with the book, I recently read a book review and commentary in The Economist that I found both interesting and closely related to Haidt’s work. The title of the article is “How Should Economists Treat Morality?” It reviews Moral Economics, a new book by Alvin Roth, which explores why some voluntary transactions are accepted by society while others are considered morally objectionable, or “repugnant.”

The article begins with the question, “Why is buying heroin easier than hiring a hitman?” We know that both are illegal in most countries. Roth’s answer is that society reacts differently to different kinds of prohibited exchanges. The article explains that a person seeking heroin will eventually find someone willing to sell it, whereas a person looking for a hitman is far more likely to encounter an undercover police officer than an actual contract killer.

IIt’s an interesting question, and I’m sure my WordPress community can come up with a variety of answers. You’re welcome to share your perspective and engage in what I hope will be a great dialogue.

My personal opinion is that it’s all about optics. You don’t read many news articles about people getting caught buying heroin, but there are plenty about contract killings. As a matter of fact, I recently read one about a person convicted of hiring a hitman to kill an American in Brazil. Drugs are often a case of “out of sight, out of mind,” whereas contract killings make major headlines and are viewed as particularly heinous crimes.

The article goes on to say that Roth, drawing on his work in market design and organ donation systems, examines markets involving activities such as organ sales, prostitution, surrogacy, drug use, and horse meat consumption. By the way, I wanted to try horse meat in Belgium, but rabbit kept winning me over every time I visited a restaurant. According to the review, Roth argues that policymakers should focus on the practical consequences of allowing or banning these activities rather than assuming a moral consensus exists. I absolutely agree with that point.

According to the article, Moral Economics highlights several key findings:

• Moral attitudes toward markets vary widely across cultures and countries.
• Prohibitions rarely eliminate an activity entirely, but they often reduce its frequency.
• Bans frequently create black markets and unintended consequences.
• Evidence suggests that some legalized activities, such as regulated prostitution, may reduce harms like sexual assault and sexually transmitted infections.

These findings are interesting, and a person could spend a significant amount of time examining each of them. However, the point about regulated prostitution is one that deserves careful consideration and further explanation. Looking only at the possibility that legalization “may reduce harms like sexual assault and sexually transmitted infections” is problematic.

At face value, it may reduce those harms. But the deeper question is why women and men resort to prostitution in the first place. Is it because of financial hardship? Is someone coercing them into prostitution and using legalization as a tool to advance personal financial interests? Or is it something else entirely? I do not know the answer, but prostitution is not simply a career that most people select from a list of employment opportunities. There are often underlying causes that deserve attention and, where possible, solutions.

The Economist reviewer appreciates Roth’s evidence-based approach but criticizes him for treating moral objections primarily as constraints to be managed rather than engaging seriously with the ethical principles behind them. The reviewer also notes that although Roth demonstrates a strong concern for individual autonomy and reducing suffering, he tends to avoid deeper debates about why people find certain transactions morally offensive.

This particular issue is addressed in The Righteous Mind, so I am looking forward to finishing the book and then returning to this article, hopefully with a better understanding of the question. I may also add Roth’s book to next year’s reading list.

The article ends with this observation:

“One that treats everything as tradable might struggle to sustain the tacit co-operation on which markets, repugnant or otherwise, ultimately rely.”

In other words, markets cannot survive on market principles alone. They require a foundation of trust, shared moral values, and social cooperation. If a society turns absolutely everything into something that can be bought and sold, it may erode the very social bonds that allow markets to function in the first place.

This final point gave me a great deal to think about because it touches on something that appears to be happening in this country today. When everything becomes transactional, we risk weakening the trust, shared values, and civic bonds that hold a society together. In the long run, that may also contribute to a decline in our standing and influence in the world.

• Philosophy