3 ms·
> The restriction is essentially equivalent to the government murdering large numbers of its citizens. Removing the restriction would be equivalent to the gove
by recursive 6y ago
> The restriction is essentially equivalent to the government murdering large numbers of its citizens.
Removing the restriction would be equivalent to the government murdering large numbers of different citizens.
- baggy_trough 6y agoOnly if you consider the government responsible for the choices people make, which I do not.
- recursive 6y ago> Only if you consider the government responsible for the choices people make, which I do not. But you are holding the government responsible for the choices people make. The choice not to donate (presumably) without compensation.
- baggy_trough 6y agoNot at all. I'm holding the government responsible for its action to remove (make illegal) a choice.
- recursive 6y agoDo you think it's ever ok for anything to be illegal? Every illegal thing represents the removal of a choice to do that thing.
- baggy_trough 6y agoCertainly I do. This one's a bad one though.
- recursive 6y agoWhat makes it worse? So far, you said that the things that make it bad are 1) it's removing a choice and 2) causing citizens to get "equivalently" murdered.
- baggy_trough 6y agoIt's worse because it causes a significant net increase in suffering and death relative to allowing people to do what they want on their own. I didn't actually say that removing a choice is inherently bad, although often it is. I was explaining why I was holding the government responsible for that action.
- pkaye 6y agoThe transplant list works on a point based system. What if those who previously agreed to be organ donors get a bonus point on the list to reduce wait times?