"We" is intended to be very vague here. I didn't think I found it repugnant. And then after thinking about it I decided there were some aspects of it I found vaguely repugnant (and these issues are more prominent for organs than other issues, which is why they come to mind in this case), and some I was fine with. But what do we find repugnant about it?
1. Commodifying organs?
2. The idea that the destitute would have to sell their own bodies to help make ends meet?
3. The idea that organs are well allocated when those with higher ability to pay get them (certainly willingness to pay plays a role, but the real constraint is inevitably going to be ability to pay)?
I think peoples' real problem is with #2 and #3.
I think economists that get really worked up about organ markets (I am pro- but I don't get very excited by the idea) like to focus on #1 (which is the least problematic), consider #2 a feature, not a bug - and don't really worry about the dehumanization of it all (possibly because the more libertarian among them have written off other solutions), and wave their hands at #3 and accept the established definition of "efficiency" and try to pretend that we shouldn't worry about the fact that demand schedules are determined by both willingness and ability to pay.
If you do hesitate a little at #2 and #3, then the fact that you are not bothered at all by #1 isn't much comfort.
Comparative advantage: a partial truth
2 hours ago