This article explores the impact that market participation has on moral values. The authors conducted experiments to see how market interaction changed how participants weighed harm done to others. They did this by asking participants to decide between receiving money or saving the life of an actual mouse. The decision to kill was considerably higher in market-like situations as compared to individual (i.e., non-market) decision-making. The finding that markets reduce moral concern is of note for animal advocates given that animals are treated as commodities in a variety of ways.

[Abstract excerpted from original source.]

“The possibility that market interaction may erode moral values is a long-standing, but controversial, hypothesis in the social sciences, ethics, and philosophy. To date, empirical evidence on decay of moral values through market interaction has been scarce. We present controlled experimental evidence on how market interaction changes how human subjects value harm and damage done to third parties. In the experiment, subjects decide between either saving the life of a mouse or receiving money. We compare individual decisions to those made in a bilateral and a multilateral market. In both markets, the willingness to kill the mouse is substantially higher than in individual decisions. Furthermore, in the multilateral market, prices for life deteriorate tremendously. In contrast, for morally neutral consumption choices, differences between institutions are small.”