4 ms·

Setting aside the persecutions, torture and possible genocide, which are undoubtedly heinous, something perplexes me: Why do we consider it ethical for a state

Setting aside the persecutions, torture and possible genocide, which are undoubtedly heinous, something perplexes me: Why do we consider it ethical for a state to execute prisoners, but consider harvesting their (now useless) organs to save more lives is ethically abhorrent? I am much more outraged by the fact that they're killing people for political reasons, the fact that they're harvesting their organs afterwards seems comparatively tame to me. I realize that harvesting organs from not-quite-dead prisoners, or killing prisoners just to harvest the organs is extremely unethical, but if someone was executed for a different reason, is it so bad to use their organs? They didn't consent to getting killed either, why are we drawing the line at organ harvesting?

ilikehurdles 7y ago
Your premise is false, we don’t consider it ethical for the state to execute prisoners. I’m glad you’re lucky enough to be born in the right place, with the right ethnicity, family name, and religious beliefs. Imagine if you were unlucky enough to get one of those things wrong, and be born to be imprisoned, tortured, and taken apart to be sold for scraps by China.
ysleepy 7y ago
It creates an incentive to hand out death sentences instead of lesser more appropriate punishments.
therealjumbo 7y ago
Because it creates a conflict of interest in the state. Similarly we don't let the state employ prisoners in any sort of for profit endeavor. Back in the day the British had prisoners move large rocks from one side of the prison yard to the other and then back again. That's brutish but there some logic behind it to keep the state from enjoying the activity.
- IanCal 7y ago
  > Similarly we don't let the state employ prisoners in any sort of for profit endeavor. Doesn't the US have prisoners working for well under a dollar an hour in places?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The extremely conflicted US prison system is a great example of why you want to avoid conflicts of interest. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
Nextgrid 7y ago
It corrupts the “justice” system even more by giving an incentive to sentence the suspect to death as opposed to just prison time. Of course, the death penalty itself is IMO immoral and I do not support it, but these are separate issues. The death penalty being there is one thing but at least nobody is benefiting from it being used. Harvesting organs from its victims changes that.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  That's true, thanks for the counterpoint.
rdl 7y ago
They're holding people in camps for extended periods. It appears (at least from what I've read) that they're really only murdering them for the organs, not because they were going to kill them. Keeping people imprisoned for no-crime is wrong, but not as bad as killing them, and is fairly proportional to the length of confinement, too. Thus, it is reasonable to specifically protest the organ-harvesting.
brennebeck 7y ago
I don’t think the harvesting alone is the main issue. I think it’s the (perceived or real) systemic abuse, e.g. the quantity. Especially if you consider, according to the article, they also have an organ donation registry. You just can’t disconnect the two issues here, they’re inextricably linked.
hydrox24 7y ago
> Why do we consider it ethical for a state to execute prisoners, but consider harvesting their (now useless) organs to save more lives is ethically abhorrent? I don't know if the following moral argument would pursuade most people, but I think it does work if you accept it is ethical for the state to execute people in the first place. It is wrong because the state now derives a material benefit from harvesting the prisoner's organs. This treats the prisoner as an means rather than an end in themselves. This is a bad thing in itself for someone who subscribes to Immanuel Kant's view of morality (or something like it). But it is, in addition, something of a hazard in providing the government with an incentive beyond justice itself to kill people. The death penalty is still moral in this framework because it is meted out to people who have themselves murdered others, and thus decided that the law to which they hold themselves permits killing, and it is therefore appropriate for the state to treat them as reasonable beings, which means treating them according to their own moral law. (this is a terrible explanation, but I hope it is a good first step. I can try and reply more later if you ask questions.). The death penalty is not permissible for whatever crime however, only specific ones.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  Hmm, no, that is convincing. Especially since the state now has an incentive to kill someone, I guess that would open up a whole can of worms.
zachrose 7y ago
For starters, we don’t all consider it ethical for a state to execute prisoners. One thing the U.S. could do would be to end capital punishment in our own country. Bluntly, it would have all the moral leadership of sanctions and none of the economic impact.
everybodyknows 7y ago
For a start, how about the observation that ponying up cash for an organ apparently triggers scheduling of the state murder? "...man in need of a kidney..." "...organs are still readily available in China for transplant tourists with very short waiting times." https://chinatribunal.com/reading-material/ https://chinatribunal.com/reading-material/ Matching of donor kidneys to immune system of specific recipients is critical to avoiding rejection.

ilikehurdles 7y ago

Your premise is false, we don’t consider it ethical for the state to execute prisoners. I’m glad you’re lucky enough to be born in the right place, with the right ethnicity, family name, and religious beliefs. Imagine if you were unlucky enough to get one of those things wrong, and be born to be imprisoned, tortured, and taken apart to be sold for scraps by China.

ysleepy 7y ago

It creates an incentive to hand out death sentences instead of lesser more appropriate punishments.

therealjumbo 7y ago

Because it creates a conflict of interest in the state. Similarly we don't let the state employ prisoners in any sort of for profit endeavor. Back in the day the British had prisoners move large rocks from one side of the prison yard to the other and then back again. That's brutish but there some logic behind it to keep the state from enjoying the activity.

IanCal 7y ago
> Similarly we don't let the state employ prisoners in any sort of for profit endeavor. Doesn't the US have prisoners working for well under a dollar an hour in places?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The extremely conflicted US prison system is a great example of why you want to avoid conflicts of interest. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Nextgrid 7y ago

It corrupts the “justice” system even more by giving an incentive to sentence the suspect to death as opposed to just prison time. Of course, the death penalty itself is IMO immoral and I do not support it, but these are separate issues. The death penalty being there is one thing but at least nobody is benefiting from it being used. Harvesting organs from its victims changes that.

StavrosK 7y ago
That's true, thanks for the counterpoint.

rdl 7y ago

They're holding people in camps for extended periods. It appears (at least from what I've read) that they're really only murdering them for the organs, not because they were going to kill them. Keeping people imprisoned for no-crime is wrong, but not as bad as killing them, and is fairly proportional to the length of confinement, too. Thus, it is reasonable to specifically protest the organ-harvesting.

brennebeck 7y ago

I don’t think the harvesting alone is the main issue. I think it’s the (perceived or real) systemic abuse, e.g. the quantity. Especially if you consider, according to the article, they also have an organ donation registry. You just can’t disconnect the two issues here, they’re inextricably linked.

hydrox24 7y ago

> Why do we consider it ethical for a state to execute prisoners, but consider harvesting their (now useless) organs to save more lives is ethically abhorrent? I don't know if the following moral argument would pursuade most people, but I think it does work if you accept it is ethical for the state to execute people in the first place. It is wrong because the state now derives a material benefit from harvesting the prisoner's organs. This treats the prisoner as an means rather than an end in themselves. This is a bad thing in itself for someone who subscribes to Immanuel Kant's view of morality (or something like it). But it is, in addition, something of a hazard in providing the government with an incentive beyond justice itself to kill people. The death penalty is still moral in this framework because it is meted out to people who have themselves murdered others, and thus decided that the law to which they hold themselves permits killing, and it is therefore appropriate for the state to treat them as reasonable beings, which means treating them according to their own moral law. (this is a terrible explanation, but I hope it is a good first step. I can try and reply more later if you ask questions.). The death penalty is not permissible for whatever crime however, only specific ones.

StavrosK 7y ago
Hmm, no, that is convincing. Especially since the state now has an incentive to kill someone, I guess that would open up a whole can of worms.

zachrose 7y ago

For starters, we don’t all consider it ethical for a state to execute prisoners. One thing the U.S. could do would be to end capital punishment in our own country. Bluntly, it would have all the moral leadership of sanctions and none of the economic impact.

everybodyknows 7y ago

For a start, how about the observation that ponying up cash for an organ apparently triggers scheduling of the state murder? "...man in need of a kidney..." "...organs are still readily available in China for transplant tourists with very short waiting times." https://chinatribunal.com/reading-material/ https://chinatribunal.com/reading-material/ Matching of donor kidneys to immune system of specific recipients is critical to avoiding rejection.