There are many aspects in the history of humankind that were considered fair and acceptable during the past. However, it was actually morally questionable when it is applied in a modern context. The realm of life insurance is one of those cases. In the past, practices regarding life insurance can be considered unethical; it can be considered a relief that the practice has grown to change for the better over time to the point that it complies more or less with the standards nowadays. An in-depth analysis about the topic was made by Zelizer in her journal article entitled Human Values and the Market: The Case of Life Insurance and Death in 19th-Century America.
In this journal, Zelizer states that past lifestyle insurance practices, specifically the ones during the nineteenth century, can be considered morally questionable because their methods are against what could be considered as humane nowadays. For example, bodies of corpses and body parts were treated as mere laboratory samples rather than parts that are derived from human beings. In other words, the practice of life insurance can be seen as reductive since it heavily reduces all of human life to just biological specimens, like tears being treated as salt water samples. This is seen as appalling, for it questions the inherent value of human life in general. In addition, it treats the question of life and death, which can be seen as transcendental concepts, as a matter of marketing and nothing more.
In the start, life insurance was seen as the answer to give compensation to the ones most affected by death including widows, orphans, bereaved family members, and the like. Because of this, it can be seen as beneficial and morally acceptable. After all, giving benefits to the one who needs them seems like an ethical thing to perform. Like any other industry, it improved over time. This can be attributed to more improved and more aggressive marketing techniques (596). However, the field of sociology did not improve along with the field of economics. As a result, the industry grew and was left unchecked by sociological factors, resulting in development of practices that can be seen as morally questionable.
In addition, the 19th century marked the change in religious ideologies of the human race in general, and thus the moral dogma of the people were shifted from a religious-based one to the rise of concepts that are more geared toward the sciences. As a result, the philosophical implications that are associated with life and death are put aside in favor of economics, medicine, and the like (595-596).
Lastly, the changing perspective towards some aspects in the society also influenced the field life insurance as well. Widows and the like, which are once considered to be the responsibility of the society, were relegated to nuclear families. In addition, death was treated as an economic liability, and thus the life insurance was made up to counter this (597).
Fortunately, life insurance has learned to change with the shifting perspectives over the years. Over time, the society reassessed the inherent value of human life through philosophy and conventions, and the life insurance society more or less adapted with it.
Aside from life insurance, another field that can generate controversy in moral and philosophical circles nowadays is the market of body parts such as egg cells and sperm cells. Overall, the practice is seen as questionable because the body parts in question are important biological parts, as they are necessary for the reproduction of a new individual. There are many factors in sociology that can influence how this field is viewed by the general community as a whole, like biological differences in both genders, the viability of potential donors, the process of matchmaking and the payment involved, among others.
First is the question of biological difference. Extracting the required cell is different from both sexes; the process for women is obviously much complicated because the egg cells are positioned inside of the woman’s body, compared to the male wherein the cells can be expelled at convenience. Because of this, women are paid if they give a sample, but males are only paid if their samples are considered acceptable (320). This can create discrimination between sexes in the field, which can pave way to issues like the definition of sex, gender construct, and the like.
Next is the question of what donors are considered acceptable. The initial impression for the job is laughable. Men are get to paid for “what they are already doing” (325) such as the habitual release of sperm. In actuality, the process is a bit more complicated than that—there are a shortage of male volunteers in the industry, and donors are further screened on their aesthetics and intelligence—concepts that can spark discussion on what is deemed acceptable and what is not.
Even though a donor is considered attractive and smart, the question lies in whether he or she acceptable to the surrogate parent. In addition, there lies the problem of payment. How much one should be paid for aiding for a conception of life?
All in all, there are many issues that are bound to cause controversy in the field of gamete marketing. Like in life insurance, time will tell if the morals and practices in this field can coincide on what is considered acceptable in the society.
Works Cited
Almeling, Rene. “Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material”. American Sociological Review 72 (2007): 319 -340. Web. 27 July 2016.
Zelizer, Viviana. “Human Values and the Market: the Case of Life Insurance and Death in 19th-Century America”. American Journal of Sociology 84.3 (1978): 591-610. Web. 21 March 2016.
