Question 1: Is Sol Levin running a business ‘just like any other business’, or is his company open to moral criticism? Defend your answer by appeal to moral principle.

Sol Levin’s business has adopted the practices that would create injustices or would violate the rights of individuals due to this business is allowing blood to be bought and sold in unfair manner.

Every person has an equal right to life. To protect this right, society has an obligation to ensure that every person whether rich or poor has equal access to medical benefits. But if a market in blood were to develop, ability to pay would determine who could buy blood, while economic need would determine who would be motivated to sell their blood. The very wealthy would end up buyers of the blood being sold by the very poor. A market in blood would thus benefit the wealthy while putting pressures on the poor to endanger their own health. Such an unequal distribution of health benefits and burdens would be unjust. (Brock and Wikler, 2006)

Moreover, individuals have a right to live their lives with freedom and dignity. A market in blood would inevitably lead to abuses that would violate the freedom and dignity of individuals. Allowing blood to be bought and sold would lead to what one critic called the "plundering of peasants' parts for profits", the exploitation of the poor and ignorant, especially in impoverished third-world countries.
People living in extreme poverty are often desperate and ill-informed. Profit seekers would take advantage of this, obtaining "consent" from those who feel compelled by necessity to sell their blood, and who may not have a clear idea of the consequences of what they were doing. Such a scheme would encourage the most vulnerable in society to treat themselves as commodities and allow others to violate their rights for commercial gain. (Andre and Velasquez, 2014)