The ethics of the organ trade: do two wrongs make a right?

In the author's world, people who would otherwise get an organ now will not be able to. If we allowed organ purchases on the free market, they would be allocated by ability to pay rather than by need.

Similarly, a person undergoing financial difficulty may end up selling organs to stay afloat.

In my opinion, the most morally acceptable result is not necessarily the most economic efficient one. The author disagrees, which is fine, but he doesn't look at the downsides to a more efficient system. The dilemmas above are completely ignored by the author, and he only focusses on the end result: economic inefficiency (more home foreclosures and deaths).

I'm weary of any argument that only looks at one side of the coin.

The title of Mankiw’s post is “Do two rights make a wrong?”, not “do two wrongs make a right” as in the HN title. Mankiw argues that it is noble and “right” to voluntarily give someone a kidney. Likewise it’s noble and “right” to voluntarily give someone money to help them pay their mortgage.