> but it's futile to condemn an action if you have not made a good-faith effort to understand the rationale. China is a collectivist society - the rights of the

> but it's futile to condemn an action if you have not made a good-faith effort to understand the rationale. China is a collectivist society - the rights of the individual are always secondary to the rights of the whole. While your argument is presented within a logical/philosophical framework, it can only be made in a hypothesized world. The fallacy is that the "whole" is hardly ever considered. Within Communist system's, the "greater good" is sold as a cake: appealing but no substance. I would bet that the organs are going to the top 1% of the rich, wealthy, and influential Chinese. I have no proof of this but being born in former USSR and still having connection to that part of the world, I can attest that majority almost never benefit. > If you want to make a persuasive argument, you need to address that core ideological difference. Why is your right to freedom of religion more valuable than our collective right to freedom from religious conflict? Why is your right to free speech more valuable than our collective right to social cohesion and stable governance? Why is your right to life more valuable than the right to life of the eight people who your organs could save? This is really tricky statement to make because on the philosophical stage, you are right. You have valid points and in theory, utilitarianism is more good than bad. However, in reality, its very difficult to discount human nature. It's simply too easy to become corrupt. In my opinion, such philosophical arguments are the road to hell, paved with good intention. On the other hand, if we could build a perfect world, where everyone was altruistic, it would be best. Reconciling such a world with known human traits and action is a different beast all together.