The old (and still somewhat used) saw goes: there is no accounting for taste. If someone wants to create and sell it, someone else will probably want to buy and use it. Supply and demand. The oldest maxim in Economics.

这仍然是一个有趣的问题，浸透在伦理学、经济学的醉人混合物中，夹杂着些许逻辑和普通的公平。如果我们正确地分析它，在我看来，有大量的证据支持“不”的答案。我们可以买到各种让人上瘾或陶醉的物质，合法的或非法的，有害的或不那么严重的。我们有选择吃什么或不吃什么的自由，以达到我们想要的效果:我们不会留下我们的兄弟姐妹。他们中的许多人不幸地死亡了，他们热情地选择了自己的命运。自由社会的生死就到此为止。道德上，对我来说，这感觉像是破产。是最过分的那种。然而，只要我们坚持珍视的自由观念，我们不能怪别人，只能怪我们自己。

Surely not all things should be for sale.

儿童色情是无可辩驳的经典案例，但不是唯一的案例。我不太愿意把奴隶制也包括进来，因为它是近代历史的一部分。奴隶制在世界各地都很盛行，包括街边的美甲店。

Repugnant markets are not the only markets that need to preserve human dignity either. All markets need to do this. Besides human dignity, other, sometimes overlapping considerations are; freedom, creativity, privacy, and human potential. To this list, I would add ecology and sustainability. Once a market designer meets these criteria, anyone would be hard-pressed to term a market as repugnant.

By this definition, many markets exist, maybe all that exist, have some repugnancy. How best to design and minimize this disgust is the question. I don't think we do this well now.

Disgust comes from the gustatory affect. When applied to morals, it takes on a very personal air, often common air. Indeed, we need to question disgust when others don't share that feeling. However, just because others don't find something repugnant, we need to be sure their tolerance is not due to ill health, immaturity, or mistreatment. If thus assured, then we need to question our values.

An excellent example of this is incest which is legal in France. Is this repugnant? Sure. There is no real market for it, I suppose, but I am disgusted by it. Pornography has a distinct cultural distaste and, if allowed, affect. It is tough to wear other shoes here.

另一个例子是美国的奴隶制。不过，就像我上面提到的，我不确定我们是否已经把这种做法淹没了，因为我们目前的种族界限、最低工资和缺乏社会安全网。

I miss Ken. Having these shows repeat makes that and his legacy clear and appreciated.

Cross-posting with the blog...

//www.f8r7.com/blog/repugnant-markets#comment-6855

The first sentence of Tim's comments pretty well states the conundrum, seems to me. And it gets us back to basics in the often-foggy realm of ethics/morality. On a personal level, each of us knows what is good for us and what is harmful. But, for as long as we have choices, we will also have freedom to exercise them. Freedom is largely the vehicle through which we exert our will. So, we can do well, or mess up, miserably. This sounds like that notion which has been kicked about a lot in the last decade or so: free will. (Don't say it too loud, unless you are ready for a rumble.) I agree with Mr. Smith. Often, we need some something to save us from ourselves. Our willfulness can be our undoing. Yet, we strongly resent paternalism and are equally annoyed at ' I -told-you-sos'., being all grown up and all.

Your illustration of tobacco is the best case I can think of. Something that never should have been marketed and sold. Of course, it still is, in spite of all reasons why it should not be. I quit years ago. My choice. Keep plugging away, team.

One more remark, in the form of a question:
May we suppose repugnant markets are an outgrowth of postmodernism?

Tim:
Yes, it follows...
So, thinking about science overeach; repugnant markets; ethics; morality and the like, is it too much of a leap to posit that things ethical and/or moral are now nothing more than what we say they are?
因为，如果这是正确的，它一定一直是这样的:我们创造这些东西，并改变它们，以适应便利和文化。序列变得如此流动以至于我们几乎没有注意到。除非我们敢“跳出体制”。