Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2009

Abstract

This paper develops my position on the ethics of price gouging in response to Jeremy Snyder's article, "What's the Matter with Price Gouging." First, it explains how the "nonworseness claim" supports the moral permissibility of price gouging, even if it does not show that price gougers are morally virtuous agents. Second, it argues that questions about price gouging and distributive justice must be answered in light of the relevant possible institutional alternatives, and that Snyder's proposed alternatives to price gouging fare worse on the dimension of justice than a system in which goods are allocated by a system of market prices.

Notes

Reprinted in Lisa Newton, Elaine Englehardt and Michael Pritchard, eds., Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Business Ethics and Society, 11th edition and 12th edition (New York: McGraw Hill, 2012).

Reprinted in Stephen Staris, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Moral Issues, 13th edition (New York, McGraw Hill, 2011).

Publication Information

© 2009 Society for Business Ethics

Published in final form at:

"Price Gouging, Non-Worseness, and Distributive Justice," Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 2 (April, 2009), pp. 295-306.

Share

COinS