Which Position Do You Take?

With regards to this post, a student recently argued that economists are moral relativists, and, like economic arguments supporting the decriminalization of drug use, there may be moral and ethical reasons for restricting things like drug use and markets for organs. Forget the fact that this student probably meant that economists are consequentialists (although I presume some are indeed moral relativists), her argument raises a valid concern. Maybe many do believe that a market for organ donations is morally repugnant and we as a society should therefore prohibit the sale of organs. That is a valid position based on tastes of moral and ethical principles, and we know that "de gustibus non est disputandum."

My only reply is the following. Would you accept the position that there should not be a market for organ donations if your mother or child or sibling needed an organ transplant and would have a high likelihood of dying before The United Network for Organ Sharing found one? What if it was you needing an organ? What if you knew today that if you someday found out you needed an organ transplant it would be too late to petition Congress in time to repeal its law against organ sharing in order to obtain one before you die?

Moral and ethical concerns are certainly valid, but we must also consider the costs of specific laws. And we ought to consider such laws behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance.

Update: By the way, it's because of this last sentence that I am understanding of arguments for criminalizing recreational drug use, but much less so for arguments prohibiting markets for organ donations.