Here are some examples of student responses to the situations from "Capitalism Among Consenting Adults."

The United States has been set up in a fashion in which great emphasis is placed upon both capitalism and the opportunity to make choice. Unfortunately, there is a catch 22 to the situation. These opportunities that we seek are often more readily available to only a select few. These select few tend to possess greater assets than most. Generally, those with estimable assets pass the wealth down through the generations resulting in an American public that is unable to reach the same plateau as the upper class and as a result, most citizens must take seriously any opportunity to do so. In such a country as ours, we are entitled to make the best of the opportunities that are presented. A man, in dire need of a cure of what ails him, should not be looked down upon for attempting to improve his situation through the use of money. Should the necessary resources to do so be at his disposal, there is no question that he should attempt to save his own life. On the other hand of the spectrum, there is the poor woman who has finally caught a break. Her cancer, which until recently has been deemed incurable, could be corrected through a new medical procedure. When asked to move to the end of the list in exchange for one million dollars and reimbursement for all future medical bills, this woman should think long and hard before making a decision. Her choice would of course depend on who she is, her current lifestyle, her relationships, her prospects for the future and other factors. Given the magnitude of the offer and the rarity of the chance to better the lives for those around her, it may be a noble gift to give.

another view...

I strongly disapprove the situation. I think it is very sad that someone is willing to basically sell their chance at life for money. This is completely wrong, because the poor patient is putting a price on her own life, which is priceless. And even though she will receive money for giving her spot to the wealthy patient, she will not be able to enjoy the money because she has basically condemned herself to death. Although she was probably thinking about her children, her children most likely would rather have their mother alive than a sum of money. They are unlikely to enjoy the money since it cost them their sick mother’s life...This transaction is completely unethical and should be illegal. However, since both parties are consenting adults, I guess the decision is really up to the poor patient.

yet another...

...I picked this situation which I think is the most complicated. One’s life should be worth more than any amount of money that is why I disagree with this situation. The chances of suffering an awful death are very high for this poor patient. But, it seems that this person values money and good fortune for her children rather than her life. For instance, this person could be very old and realizes that the money offer is a much better deal. I still feel this is wrong, because it is very similar to assistant suicide but the assistant is money, not Doctor Kevorkian...

I disagree with this action. This person who is tired of making choices is making not only a very bad economic decision, but they are sacrificing their character and integrity. Even knowing that they will not be mistreated and they will be receiving a lot of money, their opportunity cost of selling themselves is much larger than this arbitrary sum of money...what if the owner forbids them to spend the money lavishly or buy the extra things they want? The owner is not mistreating them by making them do that, right?...I believe that the action as is stated should be prohibited...But unfortunately, this does occur a lot in our society -it is just not as blatantly stated. Executives and other large corporation workers ultimately "sell out" or sell themselves to slave for a large amount of money. It takes over their lives...It may interfere with their personal relationships, and diminish the person’s morality, values, character and integrity. Personally, I’d rather have internal happiness and freedom than being extremely rich.

I approve this choice for many reasons. First and foremost, as an adult woman she should be free to make any decisions regarding her body. She then is providing a service that is in demand and she is willing to provide. Also, she specifically states that she will be "taking all possible measures to safeguard her health and her sexual partners.". This means that the risk of contracting or spreading diseases is greatly reduced. For her, the cost of her body is lower than the benefit of the money she makes from this profession. Therefore, the benefit is greater than the cost, making this decision worthwhile.

I do not agree with this at all. If this were true throughout society, slowly the rich would use their money to get advantages over everything. There are rules in society that we must abide by, whether we have money or not. When you have money it does not give you permission to come late to a movie and then jump to the front of a line. By doing this they are only making a mockery of our society and its values. If a person is willing to do anything for money they are living life for wrong reasons. At the same time the situation says a lot about the person who is paying the $25 to skip ahead in line. First of all they can easily put a value on a person or a situation. Also they believe that money can get them whatever they need in life. The transaction should definitely be prohibited because it further makes the people turn to a money driven society. People like ticket scalpers completely take advantage of events making them into an elitist atmosphere. The real fans are no longer able to afford the tickets because the scalpers se the events as an opportunity to make money. Hopefully, by prohibiting such actions it will make people realize that there are more important things than money in life.

and an alternative view...

I do not have any problems with this transaction since it doesn’t effect anyone but the two people involved. It doesn’t matter who is in front of you. If that person decides that not seeing the movie is worth $25 then all the power to them.

I definitely disapprove of this kind of situation. Political races should be based primarily upon individual’s opinions on the candidates, ending with the candidate with the majority of the votes winning the race. This basic concept is the reason why our country is a democracy. Therefore, bribery should play no part in the outcome of a political race. This transaction should be prohibited because it allows for corruption and falsehood in a country where democracy should rule. If people are allowed to bribe the public for votes, anyone with a lot of money can win a political race. In that case, the honest popular candidate who, without bribery, would have gained the majority of the votes, will now lose because of his corrupt opponent.

a similar response...

I do not think it is right that a political candidate to bribe a person in order to win an election. I think it is even more shameful for the person who accepts the bribe and votes in return for a sum of money. Political candidates should win elections based on what they have to offer the people and community. I also think that people who bribe others should be punished. Giving someone money in exchange for a vote is cheating and is morally wrong. If a political candidate is caught doing this I think they should be thrown out of the election. I also think that the person who accepts the bribe should also be punished and not allowed to vote.

I think that this would not be a bad idea and I would approve of it. As long as every party is happy and gets what they want then why would it be bad. If the poor family thinks that their child is less important than money and the wealthy families are happy with losing a child, and gaining one with a defect, then there would be nothing wrong with the deal. I think it should be prohibited though...Morally I would not approve of this deal. But as a business deal where all parties are satisfied with their trade-offs then it would be pretty interesting.

another view...

I disapprove this situation. A child is a person; they should not be given up for adoption because they have a minor birth defect. Just because the parents come from wealth does not mean that they should have the option of giving their own "less fortunate" baby up, for another more "perfect" baby. Giving birth to a child is priceless, it is a gift of life and a baby’s life should not be able to be exchanged for a certain price. This act should be prohibited. It is not fair to either of the baby’s involved in the act, and is not in either of their best interests. Rather, just the interest of the wealthy, ignorant parents that feel it would be too hard to have a less than perfect baby.

another one...

I think that it should be illegal. A child is a human being regardless of what age they are, how healthy they were born or how rich their parents are. You can not sell and buy a new kid as if he is your own property like back in the days when slavery was allowed. A child has the same rights as anyone else even if he has a minor birth defect.