Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 05: "HIRED GUNS"

Funding for this program is provided by Additional funding provided by When we ended last time we were discussing Locke’s idea of government by consent and the question arose what are the limits on government that even the the agreement of the majority can’t override that was the question we ended with we saw in the case of property rights that on Locke’s view a democratically elected government has the right to tax people it has to be taxation with consent because it does involve the taking of people’s property for the common good but it doesn’t require the consent of the each individual at the time the tax is enacted or collected what it does require is a prior act of consent to join the society to take on the political obligation but once you take on that obligation you agree to be bound by the majority so much for taxation but what, you may ask about the right to life can the government conscript people and send them into battle what about the idea that we own ourselves is the idea of self possession violated if the government can through coercive legislation and enforcement powers say you must go risk your life to fight in Iraq what would Locke say? does the government have the right to do that? yes in fact he says in one thirty nine he says what matters is that the political authority or the military authority not be arbitrary that’s what matters he gives a wonderful example he says a a sergeant even a sergeant let alone a general, a sergeant can command a soldier to go right up to the face of a cannon where he is almost sure to die that the sergeant can do the general can condemn the soldier to death for deserting his post or for not obeying even a desperate order but with all their power over life and death what these officers can’t do is take a penny of that soldier’s money because that has nothing to do with the rightful authority that would be arbitrary and it would be corrupt so consent winds up being very powerful in Locke, not consent of the individual to the particular tax or military order, but consent to join the government and to be bound by the majority in the first place that’s the consent that matters and it matters so powerfully the even the limited government created by the fact that we have an unalienable right to life liberty and property even that limited government is only limited in the sense that it has to govern by generally applicable laws, the rule of law, it can’t be arbitrary that’s Locke well this raises a question about consent. Why is consent such a powerful moral instrument in creating political authority and the obligation to obey today we begin to investigate the question of consent by looking at a concrete case the case of military conscription now some people say if we have a fundamental right that arises from

the idea that we own ourselves it’s a violation of that right for a government to conscript citizens to go fight in wars others disagree others say that’s a legitimate power of government, of democratically elected government anyhow, and that we have an obligation to obey let’s take the case the united states fighting a war in Iraq news accounts tell us that the military is having great difficulty meeting its recruitment targets consider three policies that the US government might undertake to deal with the fact that it’s not achieving its recruiting targets solution number one increase the pay and benefits to attract a sufficient number of soldiers, option number two shift to a system of military conscription have a lottery and who’s ever numbers are drawn go to fight in Iraq, system number three outsource, hire what traditionally have been called mercenaries people around the world who are qualified, able to do the work, able to fight well and who are willing to do it for the existing wage so let’s take a quick poll here how many favor increasing the pay? huge majority how many favor going to conscription? all right maybe a dozen people in the room favor conscription what about the outsourcing solution? okay so there maybe about two, three dozen during the civil war the union used a combination of conscription and the market system to fill the ranks of the military to fight in the civil war it was a system that began with conscription but if you were drafted and didn’t want to serve you could hire a substitute take your place and many people did you could pay whatever the market required in order to find a substitute people ran ads in newspapers in the classified ads offering five hundred dollars sometimes a thousand dollars for a substitute who would go fight the civil war in their place in fact it’s reported that Andrew Carnegie was drafted and hired a substitute to take his place for an amount that was a little less than the amount to spend for a year on fancy cigars now I want to get your views about this civil war system call it the a hybrid system conscription but with the buyout provision how many think it was a just system how many would defend the civil war system? anybody? one, anybody else? to three four five how many think it was unjust? most of you don’t like the civil war system you think it’s unjust, let’s hear an objection why don’t you like it? what’s wrong with it? yes. well by paying three hundred dollars for to be exempt one time around you’re really putting a price on valuing human life and we established earlier that’s really hard to do so they’re trying to accomplish something that really isn’t feasible good, so so paying someone three hundred or five hundred or a thousand dollars you’re basically saying that’s what their life is worth you. that’s what their life is worth

it’s putting a dollar value on life that’s good, and what’s your name? Liz Liz well who has an answer for Liz you defended the civil war system what do you say? if you don’t like the price then you have the freedom to not be sold or for so it’s up to you and I don’t think it’s necessarily putting a specific price on you and if it’s done by himself I don’t think there’s anything that’s really morally wrong with that So the person who takes the five hundred dollars let’s say, he’s putting his own price on his life on the risk of his life and he should have the freedom to choose to do that. exactly what’s your name? Jason Jason thank you now we need to hear from another critic of the civil war system. yes it’s a kind of coercion almost of people who have lower incomes for Carnegie he can totally ignore the draft three hundred dollars is you know irrelevant in terms of his income, but for someone of a lower income they are essentially being coerced to draft to be drafted or I mean it’s probably they’re not able to find a replacement the tell me your name. Sam Sam, all right so you say Sam that when a poor laborer buys his, accepts three hundred dollars to fight in the civil war he is in effect being coerced by that money given his economic circumstances whereas Carnegie can go off pay the money and not serve I want to hear if someone has a reply to Sam’s argument that what looks like a free exchange is actually coercive who has an answer to to Sam. go ahead I’d actually agree with him. You agree with him I agree with him in saying that it is coercion in the sense that it robs an individual of his ability to reason properly okay and what’s your name? Raul ok so Raul and Sam agree that what looks like a free exchange, free choice voluntary act is actually coercion it involves coercion it’s profound coercion of the worst kind because it falls so disproportionately upon one segment of society good, all right so Raul and Sam have made a powerful point who would like to reply who has an answer for Sam and Raul? Go ahead I just I don’t think that these drafting systems are really terribly different from you know all volunteer army sort of recruiting strategies the whole idea of you know having benefits in pay for joining the army is you know sort of a coercive strategy to get people to join it is true that military volunteers come from disproportionately, you know, lower economic status and also from certain regions of the country where you can use the patriotism to try and coerce people, if you’re like it’s the right thing to do to volunteer to go over to Iraq and tell me your name. Emily alright Emily says and Raul you’re going to have to reply to this so get ready Emily says fair enough there is a coercive element to the civil war system when the laborer takes the place of Andrew Carnegie for five hundred dollars Emily concedes that but she says if that troubles you about the civil war system shouldn’t that also trouble you about the volunteer army today? and let me, before you answer, how did you vote on the first poll, did you defend a volunteer army? I didn’t vote you didn’t vote either way you didn’t vote but did you sell your vote to the person sitting next to you? no, all right so what would you say to that argument? I think that the circumstances are different and that there was conscription in the civil war there is no draft today and I think that the volunteers for the army today have a more profound sense of patriotism that is of an individual choice than those who were forced into the military in the civil war somehow less coerced. less coerced. even though there is still inequality in American society even though as Emily points out the make-up

of the American military is not reflective of the population as a whole. Let’s just do an experiment here how many here have either served in the military or have a family member who has served in the military in this generation not parents family members in this generation and how many have neither served nor I have any brothers or sisters who have served does that bear out your point Emily? Alright now we need we need to hear from most of you defended the idea of the of the all-volunteer military overwhelmingly and yet overwhelmingly people consider the civil war system unjust Sam and Raul articulated reasons for objecting to the civil war system it took place against a background of inequality and therefore the choices people made to buy their way into military service were not truly free but at least partly coerced then Emily extends that argument in the form of a challenge all right everyone here who voted in favor of the all-volunteer army should be able should have to explain well what’s the difference in principle doesn’t the all-volunteer army simply universalize the feature that almost everyone find objectionable in the civil war buy-out provision did I state that challenge fairly Emily? ok, so we need to hear from a defender of the all-volunteer military who can address Emily’s challenge who can do that? Go ahead the difference between the civil war system and the all-volunteer army system is that in the civil war you’re being hired not by the government but by individuals and as a result different people to get hired a different individuals, get paid different in the case of the all-volunteer army everyone who gets hired is hired by the government and gets paid the same amount it’s precisely the universalization of all of essentially paying your service you pay your way to the army that makes the all volunteer army just Emily? I guess I’d frame the principal slightly differently, on the all-volunteer army it’s possible for somebody to just step aside and not really think about, you know, the war at all. it’s possible to say well I don’t need the money, you know I don’t need to have an opinion about this I don’t need to feel obligated to take my part and defend my country with a coercive system, I’m sorry, with an explicit draft, then you know there’s the threat at least that every individual will have to make some sort of decision you know, regarding military conscription and you know perhaps in that way it’s more equitable you know it’s true that Andrew Carnegie might not serve in any case but in one you know he can completely step aside from it and in the other there is some level of responsibility While you’re there Emily, so what system do you favor conscription I would be hard to say but I think so because it makes the whole country feel a sense of responsibility for the conflict instead of you know having a war that’s maybe ideologically supported by a few but only if there’s no you know, real responsibility good. who wants to reply, go ahead so I was going to say that the fundamental difference between the all-volunteer army and then the army in the civil war is that in all volunteer army if you want to volunteer that fact comes first and then the pay comes after whereas in the civil wars system the people who are volunteering, who are accepting the pay aren’t necessarily doing it because they want to, they’re just doing it for the money first what motivation beyond the pay do you think is operating in the case of the all volunteer army? Like patriotism for the country patriotism well what about pay. And a desire to defend the country and there’s some motivation in pay but the fact that it’s first and foremost in an all-volunteer army will motivate them first, I think personally okay you think it’s better, and tell me your name. Jackie Jackie do you think it’s better if people serve in the military out of a sense of patriotism than just for the money yes definitely because that people who that was one of the main problems in the civil war I mean is that the people that you’re getting to go in it or to go to war aren’t necessarily people who want to fight and so they won’t be as good soldiers as they will be had they been there because they wanted to be all right what about Jackie’s

having raised the question of patriotism that patriotism is a better or a higher motivation than money for military service who, who would like to address that question? patriotism absolutely is not necessary in order to be a good soldier because mercenaries can do just as good of a job of the job as anyone who waves the American flag around and wants to defend what the government believes that we should do did you favor the outsourcing solution? yes sir all right so let Jackie respond, what’s your name? Phillip what about that Jackie? so much for patriotism if you’ve got someone who’s heart is in it more than another person’s they’re going to do a better job when it comes down to the wire and there is like a situation in which someone has to put their life on the line someone who is doing it because they love this country will be more willing to go into danger than someone who’s just getting paid they don’t care they’ve got the technical skills but they don’t care what happens because the really have they have nothing, like, nothing invested in this country there’s another aspect though once we get on to the issue of patriotism if you believe patriotism as Jackie does, should be the foremost consideration and not money does that argue for or against the paid army we have now we call it the volunteer army, though if you think about it that’s a kind of a misnomer a volunteer army as we use the term is a paid army. so what about the suggestion that patriotism should be the primary motivation for military service not money? does that argue in favor of the paid military that we have or does it argue for conscription and just to sharpen that point building on Phil’s case for outsourcing if you think that the all-volunteer army, the paid army is best because it lets the market allocate positions according to people’s preferences and willing willingness to serve for a certain wage doesn’t the logic that takes you from a system of conscription to the hybrid civil war system to the all-volunteer army doesn’t the the idea of expanding freedom of choice in the market doesn’t that lead you all the way if you followed that principle consistently to a mercenary army? and then if you say no Jackie says no, patriotism should count for something doesn’t that argue for going back to conscription if by patriotism you mean a sense of civic obligation let’s see if we can step back from the discussion that we’ve had and see what we’ve learned about consent as it applies to market exchange we’ve really heard two arguments two arguments against the use of markets and exchange in the allocation of military service one was the argument raised by Sam and Raul the argument about coercion the objection that leading the market allocate military service may be unfair and may not even be free if there is severe inequality in this society so that people who buy their way into military service are doing so not because they really want to but because they have so few economic opportunities that that’s their that’s their best choice and Sam and Raul say there’s an element of coercion in that that’s one argument then there is a second objection to using the market to allocate military service that’s the idea

that military service shouldn’t be treated as just another job for pay because it’s bound up with patriotism and civic obligation this is a different argument from the argument about unfairness and inequality and coercion it’s an argument that suggests that maybe where civic obligations are concerned we shouldn’t allocate duties and rights by the market now we’ve identified two broad objections what do we need to know to assess those objections to assess the first the argument from coercion inequality and fairness, Sam, we need to ask what inequalities in the background conditions of society undermine the freedom of choices people make to buy and sell their labor question number one question number two, to assess the civic obligation patriotism argument we have to ask what are the obligations of citizenship is military service one of them or not what obligates us as citizens what is the source of political obligation is it consent or are there some civic obligations we have even without consent for living in sharing in a certain kind of society we haven’t answered either of those questions but our debate today about the civil war system and the all-volunteer army has at least raised them and those are questions we’re going to return to in the coming weeks Do you think you should be able to bid for a baby that’s up for adoption? That’s Andrew’s Challenge Do I think that I should be able to bid for a baby? I’m not, sure it’s a market today at I’d like to turn our attention and get your views about an argument over the role of markets in the realm of human reproduction and procreation now with infertility clinics people advertise for egg donors and from time to time in the Harvard Crimson ads appear for egg donors, have you seen them? there was one that ran a few years ago it wasn’t looking for just any egg donor, it was an ad that offered a large financial incentive for a donor from a woman who was intelligent athletic at least five foot ten and with at least fourteen hundred or above on her SAT’s how much do you think the person looking for this together was willing to pay for an egg from a woman of that description what would you guess? thousand dollars? fifteen thousand? ten? I’ll show you the ad fifty thousand dollars for an egg but only a premium egg what do you think about that? well there are also sometimes ads in the Harvard crimson and in a other college newspapers for sperm donors so the market in reproductive capacities is an equal opportunity market well not exactly equal opportunity they’re not offering fifty thousand dollars for sperm but there is a company a large commercial sperm bank that markets sperm

it’s called California cryobank it’s a for-profit company it imposes exacting standards on the sperm it recruits and it has offices in Cambridge between Harvard and MIT and in Palo alto near Stanford cryobank’s marketing materials play up the prestigious source of its sperm here is from the web site of cryobank the information here they talk about the compensation although compensation should not be the only reason for becoming of sperm donor we are aware of the considerable time and expense involved in being a donor so you know what they offer? donors will be reimbursed seventy five dollars per specimen up to nine hundred dollars a month if you donate three times a week and then they add, we periodically offer incentives such as such as movie tickets our gifts certificates for the extra time and effort expended by participating donors it’s not easy to be a sperm donor they accept fewer than five percent of the donors who apply their admission criteria are more demanding than Harvard’s the head of the sperm bank said the ideal sperm donor is six feet tall with a college degree brown eyes blond hair and dimples for the simple reason that these are the traits that the market has shown the customers want quote, quoting the head of the sperm bank, if our customers wanted high school dropouts we would give them high school dropouts so here are two instances the market in eggs for donation and the market in sperm that raise a question a question about whether eggs and sperm should or should not be bought and sold for money as you ponder that I want you to consider another case involving a market and in fact a contract in human reproductive, in the human reproductive capacity and this is the case of commercial surrogate motherhood and it’s a case that wound up in court some years ago it’s the story of baby M it began with William and Elizabeth Stern, a professional couple wanting a baby but they couldn’t have one of their own, at least not without medical risk to Mrs. Stern they went to an infertility clinic where they met Mary Beth Whitehead a twenty nine-year-old mother of two the wife of a sanitation worker she had replied to and ad that the center had placed seeking the service of a surrogate mother they made a deal they signed a contract in which William Stern agreed to pay Mary Beth Whitehead a ten thousand dollar fee plus all expenses in exchange for which Mary Beth Whitehead agreed to be artificially inseminated with William Stern’s sperm, to bear the child and then to give the baby to the Sterns well you probably know how the story unfolded Mary Beth gave birth and changed her mind she decided she wanted to keep the baby the case wound up in court in New Jersey so let’s take put aside any legal questions and focus on this issue as a moral question

how many believe that the right thing to do in the baby M case would have been to uphold the contract, to enforce the contract? and how many think the right thing to do would have been not to enforce that contract? so it’s about the majority say enforce so let’s now hear the reasons that people have either for enforcing or refusing to enforce this contract first from those, I want to hear from someone in the majority, why do you uphold the contract why do you enforce it? who can offer a reason? yes. stand up it’s a binding contract all the parties involved knew the terms of the contract before any action was taken it’s a voluntary agreement the mother knew what she was getting into all four are intelligent adults regardless of formal education or whatever so it makes sense if you know what you’re getting into beforehand and you make a promise you should uphold that promise in the end. Ok, a deal is a deal in other words? Exactly. And what’s your name? Patrick is Patrick’s reason the reason that most of you in the majority favored upholding the contract? yes? from someone who would not enforce the contract what do you say to Patrick? Why not? Yes well I mean I agree I think contracts should be upheld when all the parties know all the information but in this case I don’t think there’s a way a mother before the child exists could actually know how she’s going to feel about that child so I don’t think the mother actually had all the information she didn’t know the person that was going to be born and didn’t know how much she would love that person so that’s my argument so you would not, and what’s your name? Evan Wilson Evan he says he would not uphold the contract because when it was entered into the surrogate mother couldn’t be expected to know in advance how she would feel so she didn’t really have the relevant information when she made that contract who else who else would not uphold the contract? I think, I also think that a contact should generally be uphold but I think that the child has an inalienable right to its actual mother and I think that if that mother wants it then that child should have a right to that mother. you mean the biological mother not the adoptive mother. right and why is that, first of all tell me your name. Anna Anna, why is that Anna? because I think that that bond that is created by nature is stronger than any bond that is created by you know a contract good thank you. Who else, yes I disagree I don’t think that a child has a inalienable right to her biological mother I think that adoption and surrogacy are both trade offs and I agree with the point made that day it’s a voluntary agreement, an individual made, and you can’t apply coercion to this argument you can’t apply the objection from coercion to this argument correct. what’s your name? Kathleen Kathleen, what do you say to Evan, that though there may not have been, Evan claimed that the consent was tainted not by coercion but by lack of adequate information she couldn’t have known the relevant information namely, how she would feel about the child I don’t think her emotion content plays into this I think the emotional content or her feelings plays into this, I think in, you know, in a case of law, in the justice of this scenario, her change of feelings are not relevant if I give up my child for adoption and then I decide later on that I really want that child back too bad, it’s a trade-off it’s a trade off that the mother has made so a deal is a deal, you agree with Patrick? I agree with Patrick, a deal is a deal, yes good, yes. I would say that though I’m not really sure if I agree with the idea that the child has a right to their mother I think the mother definitely has a right to her child and I also think there are some areas where market forces shouldn’t necessarily penetrate, I think that

the whole surrogate mother area smacks a little bit of dealing in human beings it seems dehumanizing and it doesn’t really seem right so that’s my main reason and what is could, tell us your name I’m Andrew. Andrew what is dehumanizing about buying and selling the right to a child for money, what is the humanizing about it? well because you’re buying someone’s biological right I mean you can’t and the law as it states you can’t sell your own child like were you to have a child I believe that the law prohibits you selling it to another person. so this is like baby selling? Right. To a certain extent, I mean though there is a contract with another person, you’ve made agreements and whatnot there is an undeniable emotional bond that takes place between a mother and child and it’s wrong to simply ignore this because you’ve written out something contractually you want to reply to Andrew? to stay there you point out that there is an undeniable emotional bond I feel like when in this situation we’re not necessarily against adoption or surrogacy in itself we’re just sort of pointing out the emotional differences well but wait, it’s easy to break everything down to just numbers and say well we have contracts like you’re buying and selling a car but there are underlying emotions I mean you’re dealing with people I mean these are not objects to be bought and sold but what about Andrew’s claim that this is like baby selling I believe that adoption and surrogacy should be permitted whether I actually will partake in it is not really relevant but I think that the government should, the government should give its citizens the rights to allow for adoption and surrogacy. But adoption, adoption is not according to.. Is adoption baby selling? well do you think you should be able to to bid for a baby that’s up for adoption that’s Andrew’s challenge Do I think that I should be able to bid for a baby? I’m not… sure it’s a market I mean, I feel like the extent to which it’s been applied I’m not sure if the government should be able to permit it and I have to think about it more but, Alright fair enough, are you satisfied Andrew? well ya, I think surrogacy should be permitted I think that people can do it but I don’t think that it should be forced upon people that once a contract is signed it’s absolutely like the end-all I think it’s unenforceable so people should be free, Andrew, to enter into these contracts but it should not be enforceable in a court not in a court no who would like to turn on one side or the other I think I have an interesting perspective on this because my brother was actually one of the people who donated to a sperm bank and he was paid a very large amount of money he was six feet tall, but not blond he had dimples though, so he actually has, I’m an aunt now and he has a daughter she donated sperm to a lesbian couple in Oklahoma and he has have been contacted by them and he has seen pictures of his daughter but he still does not feel an emotional bond to his daughter he just has a sense of curiosity about what she looks like and what she’s doing and how she is he doesn’t feel love for his child so from this experience I think the bond between a mother and a child cannot be compared to the bond between the father and the child. That’s really interesting what’s your name? Vivian Vivian so we’ve got the case of surrogacy, commercial surrogacy and it’s been compared to baby selling and we’ve been exploring whether that analogy is apt and it can also be compared, as you point out to sperm selling but you’re saying that sperm selling and baby selling or even surrogacy are very different. Because they’re unequal services they’re unequal services and that’s because Vivian you say that the tie, the bond, yes and also the time investment that’s given by a mother, nine months cannot be compared to the man, you know going into a sperm bank looking at pornography you know, and depositing into a cup. I don’t think those are equal good. Alright so we, Because that’s what happens in a sperm bank alright so, this is really interesting we have

notice the arguments that have come out so far, the objections to surrogacy the objections to enforcing that contract, are of at least two kinds there was the objection about tainted consent this time not because of coercion or implicit coercion but because of imperfect or flawed information so tainted or flawed consent can arise either because of coercion or because of a lack of relevant information at least according to one argument that we’ve heard and then a second objection to enforcing the surrogacy contract was that it was somehow the humanizing now when this case was decided by the court what did they say about these arguments? the lower court ruled that the contract was enforceable neither party had a superior bargaining position a price for the service was struck and a bargain was reached one side didn’t forced the other neither had disproportionate bargaining power then it went to the new Jersey supreme court and what did they do they said this contract is not enforceable they did grant custody to Mister Stern as the father because they thought that would be in the best interest of the child but they restored the rights of Mary Beth Whitehead and left it to lower courts to decide exactly what the visitation rights should be they invoked two different kinds of reasons along the lines that Andrew proposed first there was not sufficiently informed consent the court argued under the contract the natural mother is irrevocably committed before she knows the strength of her bond with her child she never makes a truly voluntary informed decision for any decision prior to the baby’s birth is, in the most important sense, uninformed. that was the court then the court also made a version of the second argument against commodification in this kind of case this is this the sale of a child the court said or at the very least the sale of a mother’s right to her child whatever idealism may motivate the participants, the profit motive predominate, permeates and ultimately governs the transaction and so regardless the court said, regardless of any argument about consent or flawed consent or full information there are some things in a civilized society that money can’t buy, that’s what the courts said in voiding this contract well what about these two arguments against the extension of markets to procreation and to reproduction how persuasive are they? there was, it’s true, a voluntary agreement a contract struck between William Stern and Mary Beth Whitehead but there are at least two ways that consent can be other than truly free first if people are pressured or coerced to give their agreement and second if their consent is not truly informed and in the case of surrogacy the courts said a mother can’t know even one who already has kids of her own, what it would be like to bear a child and give it up for pay so in order to assess criticism, objection number one, we have to figure out just how free does a voluntary exchange have to be with respect to the bargaining power and equal information question number one how do we assess the second objection? the second objection is more elusive, it’s more difficult Andrew acknowledged this right? what does it mean to say there’s something dehumanizing to make childbearing a market transaction? well one of the philosophers we read on this subject Elizabeth Anderson tries to give some bring some philosophical clarity to the unease that Andrew articulated

she said by requiring the surrogate mother to repress whatever parental love she feels for the child surrogacy contracts convert women’s labor into a form of alienated labor the surrogate’s labor is alienated because she must divert it from the end from the and which the social practices of pregnancy rightly promote, namely an emotional bond with her child so what Anderson is suggesting is that certain goods should not be treated as open to use or to profit certain goods are properly valued in ways other than use what are other ways of valuing and treating? good that should not be open to use? Anderson says there are many, respect, appreciation, love, honor, awe, sanctity there are many modes of valuation beyond use and certain goods are not properly valued if they’re treated simply as objects of use how do we go about evaluating that argument of Anderson? in a way it takes us back to the debate we had with utilitarianism is use the only, in utility is use, the only proper way of treating goods? including life military service procreation childbearing? and if not, how do we figure out how can we determine what modes of valuation are fitting are appropriate to those goods several years ago there but the scandal surrounding a doctor an infertility specialist in Virginia named Cecil Jacobson he didn’t have a donor catalog because unknown to his patients, all of the sperm he used to inseminate his patients came from one donor doctor Jacobson himself at least one woman who testified in court was unnerved at how much her newborn daughter looked just like him now it’s possible to condemn doctor Jacobson for failing to inform the women in advance that would be the argument about consent the columnist Ellen Goodman described the bizarre scenario as follows doctor Jacobson, she wrote, gave his infertility business the personal touch but now the rest of us, she wrote, are in for a round of second thoughts about sperm donation Goodman concluded that fatherhood should be something you do not something you donate, and I think what she was doing and what the philosopher Elizabeth Anderson is doing and what Andrew was suggesting with this argument about dehumanization is pondering whether there are certain goods that money shouldn’t buy not just because of tainted consent but also perhaps because certain goods are properly valued in a way a higher than mere use those at least are the questions we’re going to pursue with the help of some philosophers in the weeks to come don’t miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice 0:54:01.280,0:54:03.829join the conversation, take a pop quiz, watch lectures you’ve missed, and learn a lot more Visit justiceharvard.org, it’s the right thing to do funding for this program is provided by Additional funding provided by