Markets With Limits

James Stacey Taylor urges academics to become qualitatively better at what we do in terms of scholarship. For while it will inevitably slow down our rush to publish our work for financial or careerist gains, the quality of published research will improve significantly as a result. In Part I, Taylor focuses on some details of a few salient philosophical discussions concerning the moral limits of markets, including the discussion of the Asymmetry Thesis—that there are some things that can legitimately be given away, but which it would necessarily be wrongful to buy or sell—and how, among others, Michael Sandel's, Debra Satz's, and Elizabeth Anderson's respective works in the field have been misunderstood due to poor scholarship. This mis-ascription has caused confusion in the philosophical literature on markets and morals. As a result, Taylor argues, some scholars misattribute to these authors a view which ‘almost nobody holds’ (p. 29). In Part II, Taylor seeks to remedy the problem of poor scholarship as it ‘derails’ productive philosophical discussion: Higher educational research ought not to answer to market demands, but instead ought to answer to academic ones.

Ascription · Commodification · Economics · Epistemology · Field (mathematics) · Law and economics · Political science · Positive economics · Scholarship · Sociology · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy

• Promises to the Dead

  Open Access•James S Taylor•Royal Institute of Philosophy…•2021

  Add to list