LOGIN
PRODUCTS
All Products
Online Resources
Journals & Series
Digital Media
Books & Reference Works
E-Collection
About
Alphabetically
By Category
Price Lists
Terms and Conditions
MEMBERSHIPS
Societies & Associations
Conference Registrations
SERVICES
Conference Exhibits
Conference Registrations
Electronic Publishing
Journal Advertising
Mailing Lists
Marketing Services
Membership Services
Production Typesetting
Subscription Fulfillment
ABOUT
About us
Contact
FAQs
Order Info
Privacy
Support
This Title
All Titles
Browse
>
Volume
>
5
>
Issue: 6
>> Go to Current Issue
Business Ethics Journal Review
Volume 5, Issue 6, 2017
Table of Contents
Already a subscriber? -
Login here
Not yet a subscriber? -
Subscribe here
Browse by:
Volume
Year
--- Volume ---
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
--- Year ---
2024
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
Issue: 8
Issue: 7
Issue: 6
Issue: 5
Issue: 4
Issue: 3
Issue: 2
Issue: 1
Overview
Editorial Team
RSS Feeds
E-mail Updates
Indexing / Abstracting
Submission Guidelines
Rights & Permissions
Results per page:
20
50
100
Sort by:
Page Number - ascending
Page Number - descending
Date - recent first
Date - oldest first
Title
Author
<< additional functions
Displaying: 1-1 of 1 documents
1.
Business Ethics Journal Review:
Volume
>
5
>
Issue: 6
James Stacey Taylor
Semiotic Arguments and Markets in Votes:
A Comment on Sparks
abstract
|
view
|
rights & permissions
|
cited by
Jacob Sparks has developed a semiotic critique of markets that is based on the fact that “market exchanges express preferences.” He argues that some market transactions will reveal that the purchaser of a market good inappropriately prefers it to a similar non-market good. This avoids Brennan and Jaworski’s criticism that semiotic objections to markets fail as the meaning of market transactions are contingent social facts. I argue that Sparks’ argument is both incomplete and doomed to fail. It can only show that some preferences are morally problematic, not that the transactions that they lead to are immoral.
SHARE