4 ms·

Impingement on quality of life by the seller of an organ can be, and is translated to a value statement. However, the paradoxical nature of human beings which

by grp000 8y ago

Impingement on quality of life by the seller of an organ can be, and is translated to a value statement. However, the paradoxical nature of human beings which relies largely on emotional responses dictates that while we can have people starving in the streets, because it would make society squeamish, they can't be allowed to sell their organs, for the sake of their own human dignity and quality of life, never mind that society stripped them of both anyway.

Normal_gaussian 8y ago
This isn't paradoxical at all, when both options are horrific there is little benefit to cover up one with the other and claim a solution. Furthermore a short term windfall from selling organs will not provide the skills or assets required to prevent long term starvation and homelessness; so now the horror has been compounded: homeless, starving, and prone to debilitating illness.
- grp000 8y ago
  The paradoxical nature is that being homeless and starving is horrifying but something humans have become accustomed to, and yet the idea of selling organs is embedded culturally as being shocking, even if the end result of being starving and homeless is relatively equivalent to being desperate enough to sell organs, so it's not allowed. Also, how you mention as fact that money from selling organs won't prevent long term starvation and homelessness is surprising; you don't know that's the case one way or another but you're trying to pass off an opinion as fact. I can't argue either that it would help with a clear and definite metric, but the correlation of living conditions and money is clear. How real-life application of such legalization or organ selling, with quality of surgery and post-surgery care, legal predatory practices, and other factors are dealt with are potential problems, but those are issues that exist in all commercial domains. I also never argued organ selling as a solution to a problem; as others mentioned, it is a potential band-aid to a problem that lies in wealth inequalities, but which I find interesting as a societal flashpoint that show how knee-jerk emotional responses can cause logical paradoxes.
barrkel 8y ago
Impingement on quality of life by the seller of an organ can be, and is translated to a value statement. How much is a Jew's life worth vs a Christian's life vs a Muslim's life? Or would it make you squeamish to try and adjudicate that? Or are some things not worth putting a price on because of principles, because breaking those principles would have worse second and third order effects?
- grp000 8y ago
  Well, the market as an aggregate dictates that. It's entirely reasonable to assume that from market to market, buyers have different value assessments for people of different religions, and place different values on each. On a personal level, I would pass judgment by objective quality of organ, but that's beside the point. The idea of employment already places value statements on people and mainstream moral perceptions mark discrete points that shift from moral to immoral, when in fact its all on a continuous scale and the point at which it shifts is arbitrary.

by grp000 8y ago

Normal_gaussian 8y ago

This isn't paradoxical at all, when both options are horrific there is little benefit to cover up one with the other and claim a solution. Furthermore a short term windfall from selling organs will not provide the skills or assets required to prevent long term starvation and homelessness; so now the horror has been compounded: homeless, starving, and prone to debilitating illness.

grp000 8y ago
The paradoxical nature is that being homeless and starving is horrifying but something humans have become accustomed to, and yet the idea of selling organs is embedded culturally as being shocking, even if the end result of being starving and homeless is relatively equivalent to being desperate enough to sell organs, so it's not allowed. Also, how you mention as fact that money from selling organs won't prevent long term starvation and homelessness is surprising; you don't know that's the case one way or another but you're trying to pass off an opinion as fact. I can't argue either that it would help with a clear and definite metric, but the correlation of living conditions and money is clear. How real-life application of such legalization or organ selling, with quality of surgery and post-surgery care, legal predatory practices, and other factors are dealt with are potential problems, but those are issues that exist in all commercial domains. I also never argued organ selling as a solution to a problem; as others mentioned, it is a potential band-aid to a problem that lies in wealth inequalities, but which I find interesting as a societal flashpoint that show how knee-jerk emotional responses can cause logical paradoxes.

barrkel 8y ago

Impingement on quality of life by the seller of an organ can be, and is translated to a value statement. How much is a Jew's life worth vs a Christian's life vs a Muslim's life? Or would it make you squeamish to try and adjudicate that? Or are some things not worth putting a price on because of principles, because breaking those principles would have worse second and third order effects?

grp000 8y ago
Well, the market as an aggregate dictates that. It's entirely reasonable to assume that from market to market, buyers have different value assessments for people of different religions, and place different values on each. On a personal level, I would pass judgment by objective quality of organ, but that's beside the point. The idea of employment already places value statements on people and mainstream moral perceptions mark discrete points that shift from moral to immoral, when in fact its all on a continuous scale and the point at which it shifts is arbitrary.