4 ms·

Wow you seriously think that someone selling their kidney to feed their kids is done with their own free will?

leetcrew 7y ago
"free will" is sort of a red herring in this situation. the choice should probably be considered to be made under duress, because the person's children are starving. but you don't really help the person by preventing the sale; the family is still starving. if you really don't want people selling kidneys, you need to give them enough food to eat.
louisswiss 7y ago
Yes. As a society, we should put measures in place to make sure no-one ever has to make this decision (easily accessible food banks, state support etc). And we should make sure anyone making that decision is aware of the alternatives (and implications) and not suffering from a medical condition which is impairing their ability to make decisions. But the fundamental choice should be down to the adult in question.
- tjoff 7y ago
  Now should we first ensure all of those measures exist? Or just pretend they do and not do anything?
  - louisswiss 7y ago
    My original comment (above) made it pretty clear that I believe we should be doing everything we can to ensure people don't have to make these kinds of choices. But the way to do this is by adding new, better options, not by restricting existing, 'bad' options.
    - tjoff 7y ago
      Sure, but that is an utopia that I hardly believe we will ever reach. No question hundreds of years in the future. Lets allow people to get exploited because it might not be a problem in the distant future? Or, work from both ends. By restricting bad options at the same time as we add, best we can, the good options.
      - louisswiss 7y ago
        The whole point of the scenario was that there are no good options. We shouldn't allow people to get into a situation where they have to choose between losing a kidney and their children starving. But - if someone is in that situation - it makes absolutely no sense not to let them decide which option they find least worst. By doing that, you're only making things worse.
        sodii 7y ago
        Your argument makes sense when you view such transactions as a decision problem with a single actor and no temporal element. But such transaction happens within a lifelong game with at least two players. Changing the rule of the game can influence their game tree and their behavior, far before they get into a situation where the change applies. For the kidney trade, banning it might discourage potential organ-buyers from 'check-mating' people into selling their kidneys. It also might nudge parents to work harder since they have one less things to sell off. I acutually have no opinion over banning organ trade. I'm just saying that it could make some sense.

"free will" is sort of a red herring in this situation. the choice should probably be considered to be made under duress, because the person's children are starving. but you don't really help the person by preventing the sale; the family is still starving. if you really don't want people selling kidneys, you need to give them enough food to eat.

louisswiss 7y ago

Yes. As a society, we should put measures in place to make sure no-one ever has to make this decision (easily accessible food banks, state support etc). And we should make sure anyone making that decision is aware of the alternatives (and implications) and not suffering from a medical condition which is impairing their ability to make decisions. But the fundamental choice should be down to the adult in question.

tjoff 7y ago
Now should we first ensure all of those measures exist? Or just pretend they do and not do anything?
- louisswiss 7y ago
  My original comment (above) made it pretty clear that I believe we should be doing everything we can to ensure people don't have to make these kinds of choices. But the way to do this is by adding new, better options, not by restricting existing, 'bad' options.
  - tjoff 7y ago
    Sure, but that is an utopia that I hardly believe we will ever reach. No question hundreds of years in the future. Lets allow people to get exploited because it might not be a problem in the distant future? Or, work from both ends. By restricting bad options at the same time as we add, best we can, the good options.
    - louisswiss 7y ago
      The whole point of the scenario was that there are no good options. We shouldn't allow people to get into a situation where they have to choose between losing a kidney and their children starving. But - if someone is in that situation - it makes absolutely no sense not to let them decide which option they find least worst. By doing that, you're only making things worse.
      - sodii 7y ago
        Your argument makes sense when you view such transactions as a decision problem with a single actor and no temporal element. But such transaction happens within a lifelong game with at least two players. Changing the rule of the game can influence their game tree and their behavior, far before they get into a situation where the change applies. For the kidney trade, banning it might discourage potential organ-buyers from 'check-mating' people into selling their kidneys. It also might nudge parents to work harder since they have one less things to sell off. I acutually have no opinion over banning organ trade. I'm just saying that it could make some sense.