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.

This remains an interesting question, steeped in a heady brew of ethics, economics, with dashes of logic and commonplace fairness thrown in. If we assay it rightly, it seems to me there is a preponderance of evidence supporting a 'no' answer. We can buy all manner of addictive and or intoxicating substances, either legal or illegal, harmful or not so much. We have freedom to choose what we will or will not take into our bodies to achieve desired effect: we do not keep our brothers or sisters. Many of those perish, tragically, choosing their fate enthusiastically.. So much for life and death in free society. Ethically, to me, this feels like bankruptcy. Of a most egregious sort. However, so long as we cling to cherished notions of freedom, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Surely not all things should be for sale.

Child pornography is the classic irrefutable use case but not the only one. I'm hesitant to include slavery as it is charged with recent history. Slavery is very much alive throughout the world, including in the nail salon down the street.

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.

Another example would have been slavery in the United States. Still, as I alluded to above, I am not sure we haven't just submerged that practice given our current racial lines, minimum wage, and lack of social safety nets.

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

Cross-posting with the blog...

https://www.philosophytalk.org/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?
Because, if that is right, it must have always been the case: we make these thngs up, and alter them, to suit convenience and culture. The sequence becomes so fluid we barely notice.. unless we dare to 'jump out of the system'.