Applied Ethics – Exam Essays
2. What is the best argument against a market in kidneys? Does it succeed?
In this essay, I will present the exploitation argument as the best argument against kidney markets.
Specifically, I shall discuss the exploitation of those subjected to poverty, and should therefore be protected
from the trade of kidneys. Firstly, I will briefly outline the exploitation argument. Next, I shall introduce
Richard’s counterargument pertaining to inducements and best options. Then, I will reply to this by arguing
that inducements are in fact necessities. From this, I shall argue that the ‘necessity’ notion takes primacy over
the ‘best option’ notion, which supports the exploitation argument against kidney markets. Therefore, I will
argue that this argument does succeed due to the contents of this essay. Any counterarguments against my
argument will attempt to demonstrate how my argument does not succeed, yet I will successfully refute these.
Here, I shall briefly outline the exploitation argument. Exploitation in this essay will be defined as manipulating
an individual with an unfair distribution of benefits and burdens (Zwolinski, 2016). From this, the argument
states that kidney markets should not exist as they exploit those who sell their organs. In particular, those
subjected to poverty are more likely to be exploited, since they are more likely to sell their kidneys. They are
manipulated by the firms in the market, who offer a minimal benefit (money) alongside a significant burden
(their kidney, an operation, and pain) in exchange for a significant benefit (money). Those subjected to
poverty require the money in order to afford basic necessities such as food and shelter, and the firms in the
market take advantage of this. Moreover, I do not find it uncontroversial to state that manipulation, taking
advantage, and exploitation altogether demonstrate how kidney markets are bad. Therefore, we can argue
against the existence of kidney markets because they exploit those subjected to poverty. However, this
argument can be countered, and Richards does this by appealing to inducement, which I shall explain now.
I will now explain Richards’ counterargument against the exploitation argument (1996). She defines
exploitation by introducing the terms “intrinsically unattractive” element and the “inducements”. The former is
equivalent to the burdens previously mentioned, and the inducements are the benefits (and can also be
referred to as an incentive or bribe). Then, she explains that exploitation occurs when inducements are added
to an intrinsically unattractive element to the point where it just becomes the best option available. Moreover,
the logic of inducement means that you cannot improve on someone’s position by removing an effective
inducement, as this removes their best available option. In terms of kidney markets, the firm seeks those
subjected to poverty and attaches a financial incentive to the option to sell their kidney. The financial incentive
makes this option the best one they have. Therefore, removing kidney markets will also remove the best
available option for the poor, and so should not be removed. This is a solid argument, as it initially seems
wrong to erase an individual’s best option. However, we can counter this by separating the intrinsically
unattractive element and the inducement, which I shall do below.
Now, I shall explain the importance of separating the intrinsically unattractive element and the inducement.
Richards combines the two components, yet separating them will show how the inducements are actually
, necessities, which will lead to me concluding that the ‘necessity’ notion takes primacy over the ‘best option’
notion. I will use what I call the Sad Birthday example to demonstrate this.
The Sad Birthday example goes as follows. Imagine a child called Steve who is being thrown a party for his
10th birthday. For the past year, Steve has been feeling constantly down. At the party, Steve only receives a
small handful of mundane, disheartening presents: plain socks, used underwear, flavourless toothpaste, and
so on. Steve is in desperate need of feeling happy. This is where this example splits off into Scenario A and
Scenario B.
In Scenario A, a family member, Alan, brings along a present for Steve. It is a bottle of a vomit-inducing drug
that we will call V. If Steve consumes the bottle of V, he will vomit for hours on end. The vomiting will end
eventually. Unsurprisingly, Steve refuses the present. In Scenario B, Alan still brings along a present for
Steve. This time, it is a birthday cake just for him. Covered with mountains of icing and sprinkles, as well as
being his favourite flavour (strawberry), eating the cake will make Steve feel happy for the first time in a year.
However, Alan tells Steve that a bottle of V was poured into the cake and cannot be avoided. Therefore, if
Steve eats the cake, he will vomit for hours on end. Since Steve desires to experience joy, he eats the cake,
despite the bottle of V.
With Richards’ reasoning, the bottle of V represents an intrinsically unattractive element, since vomiting is an
unpleasant experience and should not be brought upon people unnecessarily. The cake is the inducement,
since it makes this option the most appealing to Steve. However, I believe the term ‘inducement’ is not fully
accurate. Instead, I believe the term ‘necessity’ is more appropriate. For Steve, he needs to feel happy
because he has not felt so for the past year, yet this comes at the expense of profusely vomiting. I believe
children should not be subjected to these conditions in order to feel happy, as it is something that makes life
worth living (Weber, 2011). Therefore, I do not believe that providing a necessity should come at the cost of
intrinsically unattractive elements. This also applies to kidney markets. The money is not just something a
poverty-stricken individual likes, but needs in order to survive. From this, it is clear that separating the
‘intrinsically unattractive’ element and ‘inducement’ highlights how the inducement is in fact a necessity, and
both the Sad Birthday and kidney market examples represent the wrongful use of necessities.
Furthermore, I believe the ‘necessity’ notion takes primacy over the ‘inducement’ notion, which supports the
exploitation argument against kidney markets. When you think of the term necessity, you think of commodities
and states of mind that are required in order for an individual to live. These are the elements that are present
in both the kidney markets and Sad Birthday example. However, the term inducement fails to do this, since it
reduces the component to a mere want, which is incorrect. Steve needs to feel happy in order to function in
everyday life, and a poverty-stricken individual needs money in order to buy basic necessities. They do not
merely want these just because – there is a need, which is personal and justified. Therefore, we can state that
Richards’ argument falls due to the use of the term inducement, meaning that the ‘best option’ idea becomes
obsolete and the exploitation argument holds. This means we can diverge away from the idea that
inducements are added onto an intrinsically unattractive element, and towards the idea that exploiters target
the wrongful use of necessities by a means of manipulation at those in need to those necessities, thus
