Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > 'Selling Yourself:Titmuss's Argument Against a ...
View graph of relations

'Selling Yourself:Titmuss's Argument Against a Market in Blood.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

'Selling Yourself:Titmuss's Argument Against a Market in Blood. / Archard, David.
In: Journal of Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2002, p. 87-102.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Archard D. 'Selling Yourself:Titmuss's Argument Against a Market in Blood. Journal of Ethics. 2002;6(1):87-102. doi: 10.1023/A:1015852012719

Author

Archard, David. / 'Selling Yourself:Titmuss's Argument Against a Market in Blood. In: Journal of Ethics. 2002 ; Vol. 6, No. 1. pp. 87-102.

Bibtex

@article{9f7cc4d2b6414f5fa3f4aac4d972a09a,
title = "'Selling Yourself:Titmuss's Argument Against a Market in Blood.",
abstract = "This article defends Richard Titmuss''s argument, and PeterSinger''s sympathetic support for it, against orthodoxphilosophical criticism. The article specifies thesense in which a market in blood is ``dehumanising'''' ashaving to do with a loss of ``imagined community'''' orsocial ``integration'''', and not with a loss of valued or``deeper'''' liberty. It separates two ``domino arguments''''– the ``contamination of meaning'''' argument and the``erosion of motivation'''' argument which support, indifferent but interrelated ways, the claim that amarket in blood is ``imperialistic.'''' Concentrating onthe first domino argument the article considers theview that monetary and non-monetary meanings of thesame good can co-exist given the robustness of certainkinds of relationship and joint undertakings withinwhich gifts can figure. It argues that societalrelationships are vulnerable or permeable to theeffects of the market in a way that those constitutiveof the personal sphere are not.General, more broadly political questions remainunanswered but the core of Titmuss''s original andchallenging argument remains and can be presented ina defensible form.",
keywords = "altruism - blood - domino argument - Eric Mack - gift - imagined community - market - personal attributes - Peter Singer - Richard Titmuss",
author = "David Archard",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1023/A:1015852012719",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "87--102",
journal = "Journal of Ethics",
issn = "1572-8609",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Selling Yourself:Titmuss's Argument Against a Market in Blood.

AU - Archard, David

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - This article defends Richard Titmuss''s argument, and PeterSinger''s sympathetic support for it, against orthodoxphilosophical criticism. The article specifies thesense in which a market in blood is ``dehumanising'''' ashaving to do with a loss of ``imagined community'''' orsocial ``integration'''', and not with a loss of valued or``deeper'''' liberty. It separates two ``domino arguments''''– the ``contamination of meaning'''' argument and the``erosion of motivation'''' argument which support, indifferent but interrelated ways, the claim that amarket in blood is ``imperialistic.'''' Concentrating onthe first domino argument the article considers theview that monetary and non-monetary meanings of thesame good can co-exist given the robustness of certainkinds of relationship and joint undertakings withinwhich gifts can figure. It argues that societalrelationships are vulnerable or permeable to theeffects of the market in a way that those constitutiveof the personal sphere are not.General, more broadly political questions remainunanswered but the core of Titmuss''s original andchallenging argument remains and can be presented ina defensible form.

AB - This article defends Richard Titmuss''s argument, and PeterSinger''s sympathetic support for it, against orthodoxphilosophical criticism. The article specifies thesense in which a market in blood is ``dehumanising'''' ashaving to do with a loss of ``imagined community'''' orsocial ``integration'''', and not with a loss of valued or``deeper'''' liberty. It separates two ``domino arguments''''– the ``contamination of meaning'''' argument and the``erosion of motivation'''' argument which support, indifferent but interrelated ways, the claim that amarket in blood is ``imperialistic.'''' Concentrating onthe first domino argument the article considers theview that monetary and non-monetary meanings of thesame good can co-exist given the robustness of certainkinds of relationship and joint undertakings withinwhich gifts can figure. It argues that societalrelationships are vulnerable or permeable to theeffects of the market in a way that those constitutiveof the personal sphere are not.General, more broadly political questions remainunanswered but the core of Titmuss''s original andchallenging argument remains and can be presented ina defensible form.

KW - altruism - blood - domino argument - Eric Mack - gift - imagined community - market - personal attributes - Peter Singer - Richard Titmuss

U2 - 10.1023/A:1015852012719

DO - 10.1023/A:1015852012719

M3 - Journal article

VL - 6

SP - 87

EP - 102

JO - Journal of Ethics

JF - Journal of Ethics

SN - 1572-8609

IS - 1

ER -