Statement 1: We need to address Dr. Nguyen’s concerns further. What are the long-term implications of relying on market arbitration? Though the market’s neutrality means it is not inherently biased, manipulating the system for something unintended could have disastrous, unforeseen consequences. We should present ethical conclusions to the public, not slide them into the public consciousness via the free market.

Statement 2: I don’t see the issue here, but more importantly, I don’t see any changes that we are required to make. Making decisions based on ethics may or may not affect the market. We are not changing the way the market operates or imposing ethics on a neutral mechanism, so this is a non-issue. 

Statement 3: Dr.Reynolds is right. The market itself is free of bias, but we present our own biases through the demand and supply that keep the market alive. While we are not looking to change the fundamental mechanism of the free market, we can certainly impose or ease restrictions, which amounts to imposing desired ethics. This is not new, we are simply acknowledging the market as a means to express ethical decisions. 

Statement 4:The free market is virtually untapped in terms of forging a new and more ethical space. Its neutrality makes it a perfect canvas, and we can choose the paint. If we want to condone egg sales, we can even create an artificial demand that will boost the supply. Then, with proper advertising, we can generate real demand and set whole industries in motion when we deem it ethical to do so.