5 ms·

Trading a kidney for access to a news site would obviously be insane, and we should have laws to prevent insane people from harming themselves. On the other ha

Trading a kidney for access to a news site would obviously be insane, and we should have laws to prevent insane people from harming themselves. On the other hand, if a person of sound mind decided they would rather have $1,000,000 than both of their kidneys, why shouldn't they be able to sell one, logically? The idea of selling one's organs sets off the human involuntary disgust/outrage reaction ("of COURSE it should be illegal! how DARE you suggest such a thing?!"), but if we put that aside, is there a rational reason it shouldn't be allowed?

tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago
The news site was an obviously over-the-top example, but the more realistic $1,000,000 offer would be just as illegal. The rational reason for that is that in the real world, not all choices are made by perfectly rational, superhumanely intelligent actors that have and consider all the information. Also, not all decisions on a free market are truly freely made. If all standard housing/mortgage contracts contain that you have to sign away your kidney as a security deposit in case you can't pay your rent/mortgage rates, do you really have a choice? With data on web sites, it's the same. Almost every web site collects data. You don't realistically have the option of going to a different news site if you don't like that deal.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >With data on web sites, it's the same. Almost every web site collects data. You don't realistically have the option of going to a different news site if you don't like that deal. You have plenty of choice: make your own, feed them wrong information, feed them no information or find a site that doesn't. If enough people care about this niche then your website would succeed.
  - mafuy 8y ago
    I don't agree. None of these is a real option. - I cannot just make a website or service. It is usually a huge project that only few people can solve. - I have no way to feed wrong information without diving very deep into that website's code. We are not just talking about data I enter, also about things that are collected without conscious effort on my part. It is not practical at all to feed false or no information. If they sell my IP address, how can I feed wrong or no information? - Finding a site that does not act like this is the only way left, and it is exactly what the parent explained does not exist, because realistically, there are many topics for which virtually every site does act like this.
    - icedchai 8y ago
      Use a VPN, sign up with a fake name, always browse in private mode, or regularly delete cookies. This will minimize your foot print.
wsy 8y ago
Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that? If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?
- umanwizard 8y ago
  You first -- on what principles do you think the grandfather's choice in your example should be illegal?
  - wsy 8y ago
    Illegal simply because it is murder, regardless how much money the murderer pays in advance. Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor, and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Another angle to object would be Rawls's theory of justice: suppose you would have to design a society, but you wouldn't know into which place of this society you would be born into. You could be born as son of Bill Gates, or as daughter of the poor homeless beggar at the next corner. How would you design a society under these conditions?
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      Edit to state the central point clearly at the top: why do you think restricting their range of possible choices "protects the poor and weak" ? If you have a shitty job, would you be better off getting fired? No, because presumably you already had the ability to quit. (Anticipating someone jumping on me for the analogy: I'm obviously not saying having a shitty job is equivalent to being in such dire straits that someone would consider selling their kidney. I recognize the a huge difference in degree. I'm just illustrating the point.) > Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. This is just restating your conclusion, not providing an argument. > A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor That's already the system we have. I can entice people to do all sorts of things that they would rather not do, because I have money, like cook food for me, build airplanes that I can fly in, and so on. > and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. We're not talking about making it legal to spend money to influence voting or politics, so I don't follow this. > How would you design a society under these conditions? My argument doesn't even rely on this veil of ignorance! Even if I KNEW I was going to be reincarnated as a poor beggar, why wouldn't I design society to give myself more choices, rather than fewer? It's not like anyone would be forced to sell their kidneys if they don't want to.

tgsovlerkhgsel 8y ago

The news site was an obviously over-the-top example, but the more realistic $1,000,000 offer would be just as illegal. The rational reason for that is that in the real world, not all choices are made by perfectly rational, superhumanely intelligent actors that have and consider all the information. Also, not all decisions on a free market are truly freely made. If all standard housing/mortgage contracts contain that you have to sign away your kidney as a security deposit in case you can't pay your rent/mortgage rates, do you really have a choice? With data on web sites, it's the same. Almost every web site collects data. You don't realistically have the option of going to a different news site if you don't like that deal.

Mirioron 8y ago
>With data on web sites, it's the same. Almost every web site collects data. You don't realistically have the option of going to a different news site if you don't like that deal. You have plenty of choice: make your own, feed them wrong information, feed them no information or find a site that doesn't. If enough people care about this niche then your website would succeed.
- mafuy 8y ago
  I don't agree. None of these is a real option. - I cannot just make a website or service. It is usually a huge project that only few people can solve. - I have no way to feed wrong information without diving very deep into that website's code. We are not just talking about data I enter, also about things that are collected without conscious effort on my part. It is not practical at all to feed false or no information. If they sell my IP address, how can I feed wrong or no information? - Finding a site that does not act like this is the only way left, and it is exactly what the parent explained does not exist, because realistically, there are many topics for which virtually every site does act like this.
  - icedchai 8y ago
    Use a VPN, sign up with a fake name, always browse in private mode, or regularly delete cookies. This will minimize your foot print.

wsy 8y ago

Yes: it protects the poor and weak. Thought experiment: a multi-billionaire wants to beat a human to death, and offers $10 million for it. A grandfather decides he would like to take that offer, for his children and grandchildren. Would you allow that? If you also would not allow it (that's what I hope), then where is the proper boundary? What should we outlaw, and what allow?

umanwizard 8y ago
You first -- on what principles do you think the grandfather's choice in your example should be illegal?
- wsy 8y ago
  Illegal simply because it is murder, regardless how much money the murderer pays in advance. Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor, and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. Another angle to object would be Rawls's theory of justice: suppose you would have to design a society, but you wouldn't know into which place of this society you would be born into. You could be born as son of Bill Gates, or as daughter of the poor homeless beggar at the next corner. How would you design a society under these conditions?
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Edit to state the central point clearly at the top: why do you think restricting their range of possible choices "protects the poor and weak" ? If you have a shitty job, would you be better off getting fired? No, because presumably you already had the ability to quit. (Anticipating someone jumping on me for the analogy: I'm obviously not saying having a shitty job is equivalent to being in such dire straits that someone would consider selling their kidney. I recognize the a huge difference in degree. I'm just illustrating the point.) > Immoral because human life and dignity should not become a tradeable commodity. This is just restating your conclusion, not providing an argument. > A society allowing this would quickly deteriorate into a system where the rich just buy the desired behavior from the poor That's already the system we have. I can entice people to do all sorts of things that they would rather not do, because I have money, like cook food for me, build airplanes that I can fly in, and so on. > and we would end up with an oligarchy instead of a democracy. We're not talking about making it legal to spend money to influence voting or politics, so I don't follow this. > How would you design a society under these conditions? My argument doesn't even rely on this veil of ignorance! Even if I KNEW I was going to be reincarnated as a poor beggar, why wouldn't I design society to give myself more choices, rather than fewer? It's not like anyone would be forced to sell their kidneys if they don't want to.