Ep 1 SEX WORK, ORGAN SALES, AND INTUITION A conversation with Professor Cecile Fabre

Episode Overview

• The podcast introduces its mission to explore deep questions in political philosophy and their real-world relevance, moving beyond simple partisan debates.
• The episode features a conversation with Professor Cécile Fabre on the ethics of bodily commodification, first discussing the case for decriminalizing sex work.
• The discussion shifts to the more controversial topic of legalizing organ sales, framed as a matter of distributive justice and the rights of the poor.
• The conversation concludes with a meta-ethical exploration of moral intuitions, questioning when we should trust them and when they should be overridden by more fundamental principles.

Key Concepts

• Podcast Mission: To demonstrate how political philosophy is embedded in everyday life and to engage with complex ethical questions in a non-partisan way.
• Ethics of Commodification: The central theme exploring whether it is morally permissible to buy and sell things typically considered outside the market, specifically sex and human organs.
• Sex Work and Criminalization: The argument that while sex work may be considered immoral by some, it does not meet the high threshold for state criminalization. Instead, legalization and regulation could better protect workers.
• Distributive Justice and Organ Sales: The idea that in a society that fails to provide a basic safety net for its poorest citizens, prohibiting them from selling an organ to survive constitutes a "compounding injustice."
• Moral Intuitions: A discussion on the nature and reliability of our gut feelings on ethical issues. It distinguishes between foundational intuitions (e.g., "suffering is bad") and those based on faulty premises, which can be revised.
• Exploitation vs. Choice: The tension between protecting vulnerable people from exploitation (e.g., being forced by poverty to sell a kidney) and respecting their autonomy by not removing one of the few options available to them.

Quotes

• At 1:28 - "I want to share how the political... politics as it were, is something that's inside you and all around you. It's something that's in everything that you do." - Host Toby Buckle explains his motivation for the podcast, emphasizing the personal and pervasive nature of political philosophy.
• At 9:35 - "I don't think sex work... should be criminalized... even if you think that sex work is immoral... it doesn't follow that the state should turn it into a criminal offense." - Professor Fabre states her core argument that the act of sex work itself does not meet the high threshold required for criminalization by the state.
• At 16:32 - "By criminalizing prostitution, you actually make it much harder for the state to regulate it properly, and you make it much harder for prostitutes themselves to organize and unionize." - Fabre argues that criminalization is counterproductive, driving the industry underground and making workers more vulnerable.
• At 17:10 - "It strikes me that almost every argument... that people make against prostitution could also be made against coal mining as a profession." - The host questions the unique stigma attached to sex work by comparing its perceived harms to those of other dangerous but legal professions.
• At 25:28 - "Yes, I would... I know that's a very, very controversial view, but, you know, I feel no attachment whatsoever... to those parts, you know, of myself." - The first speaker affirms her view of body parts as a form of capital, a perspective that underpins her support for their commodification.
• At 26:15 - "The image that really sort of troubles me with organ sales is people who are living... right on the poverty line, and the way they get something that their child desperately needs is they have to sell a kidney." - The interviewer expresses his central ethical concern: the exploitation of the poor who are forced into selling organs out of desperation.
• At 26:45 - "Now, that doesn't scare me with prostitution for whatever reason. It does with this." - The interviewer highlights the nuanced and sometimes inconsistent nature of moral intuitions, feeling differently about two seemingly related forms of bodily commodification.
• At 28:43 - "if we refuse to do that which we are mandated by distributive justice to do... it seems to be a further injustice. If in addition, we say to those people... 'we're not even going to allow you to sell a kidney.'" - Fabre forcefully argues that in a society that fails to provide for its poor, it is a compounding injustice to then also prohibit them from using one of their few assets (an organ) to survive.
• At 46:26 - "So I would say our intuition that suffering is undesirable is more fundamental, in a sense, than our intuition... that there’s something off about kidney sales." - The interviewer proposes a hierarchy of moral intuitions, suggesting that the foundational aversion to suffering should override more specific, less certain feelings about particular market transactions.
• At 56:38 - "So that would be a perfect example though of a sort of one intuition being overridden by a more fundamental one." - The speaker agrees with the idea that foundational moral principles (like preventing suffering) can and should override weaker, more specific intuitions when they conflict.

Takeaways

• Critically separate the concepts of immorality and criminality; an act can be considered immoral by many without justifying its prohibition by the state.
• Before restricting the choices of vulnerable people in the name of protecting them, consider whether you are removing a crucial lifeline and thereby compounding a pre-existing injustice.
• Pay attention to your own moral intuitions, especially when they are inconsistent, as this can reveal underlying assumptions or biases that need to be examined.
• In complex ethical dilemmas, weigh specific gut reactions against more fundamental, universal moral principles, such as the desire to alleviate suffering.
• Consider the practical consequences of prohibition, which can drive activities underground and make participants less safe than they would be in a regulated system.
• Approach political issues not just as partisan contests, but as opportunities to apply deeper ethical frameworks to find more just and humane solutions.