4 ms·

After a lot of thought a few years back about freedom, I started considering what future generations might fight for, or have. What do we consider immoral today

After a lot of thought a few years back about freedom, I started considering what future generations might fight for, or have. What do we consider immoral today, that would be considered immoral tomorrow? > I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? Freedom of destiny. If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. If a person requests assisted suicide when suffering from a terrible disease, then absolutely. Why should someone be forced to die in disgrace, purely to satisfy the dogmatic morals of those around them? Less moral systems force a certain life on people, but they argue that it is moral. We are forcing a certain death on people, and are arguing it's moral. This line of thinking is in line with the current zeitgeist, and the truth of the matter is that no zeitgeist will ever be perfect - but we can improve things by challenging our core morals (just as we did with slavery, women, LGTBQ+).

maxerickson 5y ago
If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? This is probably a reasonable medium term comparison to selling organs (where using someone else's flesh will become an aesthetic choice more than a necessity or the medically superior option).
- endtime 5y ago
  > If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? What's the argument against allowing this? That it's distasteful? Edit: pun not intended, but noticed immediately and preserved.
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    Because it's fucking weird? Sorry but we live in a civil society that shouldn't encourage this kind of stuff. At what point do these arguments become so reductive as to have little to no substance?
    - endtime 5y ago
      Well, I certainly wouldn't do it, nor would I endorse it. But I don't think the government should imprison people for doing things that random people on the internet consider weird.
      - zamalek 5y ago
        This is exactly what I mean. I (probably) wouldn't go for assisted suicide, but I have no right to demand someone else suffer because of my own insecurities about death. I (probably) wouldn't even volunteer my spare kidney, but I have no right to say that a 70y parent can't give their heart to their dying 30y. Freedom of destiny wouldn't be the only freedom that allows societal problems, but freedom is not the cause: inequality and power are.
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    It's directly harmful to society to make it rewarding for people to mutilate themselves.
    - xkcd-sucks 5y ago
      An economic argument might be that a person buying an arm must be able to make better use of it than a person selling an arm (e.g. the buyer can pay the seller enough to incentivize it), so therefore it is more productive to society to allow the transaction.
      - dTal 5y ago
        It doesn't follow that when two individuals are incentivized to transact with one another, that that transaction has a net positive impact on wider society; there may be negative externalities. Additionally, people are not always completely rational and perfectly informed agents, which means that not all voluntary transactions do render positive value to them. Selling your arm is vanishingly unlikely to be an efficient use of resources, particularly as arms are not fungible (you cannot change your mind later and reacquire an arm). An arm is just much more valuable when attached to a person, and if the economic incentives point the other way, we should probably look for how such a perverse situation came about, rather than fire up our circular saws.
      - maxerickson 5y ago
        Yeah, this is the argument for bitcoin, that if the transaction occurs then it must make sense for society.
    - 3np 5y ago
      Advertising, alcohol, tobacco, meat production, online gambling, excessive daily gaming are all net harmful and yet here we are. Just because something is (considered) harmful to society doesn’t mean that it is right of the government to use monopoly of violence to prevent individuals from it. Some things, of course, but it is not sufficient. Lest you’re looking at a moralizing authoritarian government as a good thing.
    - 5y ago
johnchristopher 5y ago
> > I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? > Freedom of destiny. If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. How is that world better than this one ? With all the resources we have in the world, why don't we strive to allow for people to have better options than organ selling ?
- zamalek 5y ago
  That's a false dichotomy. Both of those worlds could exist simultaneously. I gave examples, thought experiments.
oroul 5y ago
> If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. The thing is, nobody of sound mind who has a choice (and I mean a real choice, not "give us your organs or your family starves") would choose to do this. Nobody wants to sell their organs. People that want to purchase organs would love your suggestion however, as it allows them to justify exploitation of the desperate under the guise of "it was their decision". Freedom of destiny indeed.
- zamalek 5y ago
  There are multiple documented instances of life insurance fraud for exactly this purpose.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  Freedom must include the freedom to make mistakes, as well as the freedom to make choises you don't understand. Otherwise some entity will "keep you safe from yourself".
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    Genuinely asking. Do you then think we should drop age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales?
    - zamalek 5y ago
      Children aren't biologically capable of making sound decisions about their destiny[1]. If anything, the age could be raised. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/
      - DubiousPusher 5y ago
        I'm not sure how many children you've known. There is a huge disparity in how wise they are just as is the case with adults. I'm not sure I see the philosophical consistency of telling a sharp youth who wants to smoke that they can't while letting an unsavy adult get talked into giving up their left lung.

maxerickson 5y ago

If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? This is probably a reasonable medium term comparison to selling organs (where using someone else's flesh will become an aesthetic choice more than a necessity or the medically superior option).

endtime 5y ago
> If someone is willing to cut off their arm for sale as food, should other people be allowed to buy it? What's the argument against allowing this? That it's distasteful? Edit: pun not intended, but noticed immediately and preserved.
- arthurcolle 5y ago
  Because it's fucking weird? Sorry but we live in a civil society that shouldn't encourage this kind of stuff. At what point do these arguments become so reductive as to have little to no substance?
  - endtime 5y ago
    Well, I certainly wouldn't do it, nor would I endorse it. But I don't think the government should imprison people for doing things that random people on the internet consider weird.
    - zamalek 5y ago
      This is exactly what I mean. I (probably) wouldn't go for assisted suicide, but I have no right to demand someone else suffer because of my own insecurities about death. I (probably) wouldn't even volunteer my spare kidney, but I have no right to say that a 70y parent can't give their heart to their dying 30y. Freedom of destiny wouldn't be the only freedom that allows societal problems, but freedom is not the cause: inequality and power are.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  It's directly harmful to society to make it rewarding for people to mutilate themselves.
  - xkcd-sucks 5y ago
    An economic argument might be that a person buying an arm must be able to make better use of it than a person selling an arm (e.g. the buyer can pay the seller enough to incentivize it), so therefore it is more productive to society to allow the transaction.
    - dTal 5y ago
      It doesn't follow that when two individuals are incentivized to transact with one another, that that transaction has a net positive impact on wider society; there may be negative externalities. Additionally, people are not always completely rational and perfectly informed agents, which means that not all voluntary transactions do render positive value to them. Selling your arm is vanishingly unlikely to be an efficient use of resources, particularly as arms are not fungible (you cannot change your mind later and reacquire an arm). An arm is just much more valuable when attached to a person, and if the economic incentives point the other way, we should probably look for how such a perverse situation came about, rather than fire up our circular saws.
    - maxerickson 5y ago
      Yeah, this is the argument for bitcoin, that if the transaction occurs then it must make sense for society.
  - 3np 5y ago
    Advertising, alcohol, tobacco, meat production, online gambling, excessive daily gaming are all net harmful and yet here we are. Just because something is (considered) harmful to society doesn’t mean that it is right of the government to use monopoly of violence to prevent individuals from it. Some things, of course, but it is not sufficient. Lest you’re looking at a moralizing authoritarian government as a good thing.
  - 5y ago

johnchristopher 5y ago

> > I don't know, do you think the world would be better if people could sell their organs? > Freedom of destiny. If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. How is that world better than this one ? With all the resources we have in the world, why don't we strive to allow for people to have better options than organ selling ?

zamalek 5y ago
That's a false dichotomy. Both of those worlds could exist simultaneously. I gave examples, thought experiments.

oroul 5y ago

> If a spouse wanted to sell their organs to improve the life of the remainder of their family, and made the choice with sound mind, then absolutely. The thing is, nobody of sound mind who has a choice (and I mean a real choice, not "give us your organs or your family starves") would choose to do this. Nobody wants to sell their organs. People that want to purchase organs would love your suggestion however, as it allows them to justify exploitation of the desperate under the guise of "it was their decision". Freedom of destiny indeed.

zamalek 5y ago
There are multiple documented instances of life insurance fraud for exactly this purpose.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
Freedom must include the freedom to make mistakes, as well as the freedom to make choises you don't understand. Otherwise some entity will "keep you safe from yourself".
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  Genuinely asking. Do you then think we should drop age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol sales?
  - zamalek 5y ago
    Children aren't biologically capable of making sound decisions about their destiny[1]. If anything, the age could be raised. [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/
    - DubiousPusher 5y ago
      I'm not sure how many children you've known. There is a huge disparity in how wise they are just as is the case with adults. I'm not sure I see the philosophical consistency of telling a sharp youth who wants to smoke that they can't while letting an unsavy adult get talked into giving up their left lung.