2 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoThe 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 agoYour 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.