3 ms·

It is important to acknowledge that allowing the State or any other entity to dictate ownership over a person's body is a violation of fundamental human rights.

It is important to acknowledge that allowing the State or any other entity to dictate ownership over a person's body is a violation of fundamental human rights. Every individual has the right to autonomy and dignity, which includes the right to make decisions about their own body and what happens to it after death. The idea of selling one's body for experimentation or any other purpose goes against these principles and raises concerns about exploitation and commodification of human life. While poverty and lack of financial resources can certainly create difficult situations for families, it is not ethical to suggest that selling a loved one's body for experimentation is a valid solution. Such a practice would further perpetuate systemic inequalities and injustice by exploiting those who are already vulnerable. There are alternative solutions to addressing poverty and supporting families in difficult situations, such as providing social welfare programs and assistance, education, and job opportunities. It is important to approach these issues with compassion and respect for human dignity, rather than resorting to exploitative practices that violate basic human rights.

logicalmonster 4y ago
1) No offense intended and nothing against the quality of the writing in the comment here, but I can't quite tell if your comment is written by a bot because it just seems to default to such generic phrases. 2) Please note that I didn't suggest selling a loved one's body for experimentation: I suggested that an individual has the right to choose what happens with their own body. That is an extremely important distinction in this matter. 3) I don't see how a poor family having the option of a financial windfall when they're losing their family breadwinner does anything but alleviate whatever "systemic inequalities" might exist. If somebody is dying either way, isn't their family having some money putting them in a better situation for their future than having no money? You can still disagree with the ethics of this of course, but just as far as the financial situation, I cannot understand any logic that says that a family is financially better off with no money rather than money.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  Maybe exploitation of the vulnerable just isn't apparent to someone so logical You seem to view everything through the lens of money and nothing else, you don't consider the externalities of having a system where capital owners can further exploit those in precarious situations and you don't seem to understand that that creates incredibly perverse incentives
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    1) Nice banter, but I still don't see how a guarantee of no money is a better outcome for vulnerable people than a choice of having money. Why are people called vulnerable in the first place? It's usually because they have no money. I think it's good for them to have the choice of having some. 2) We might use slightly different language, but we're both viewing reality through a lens of money, because that's an important part of life. The difference is that I'm trying to think of a system that might be able to help some people, while all everybody who is opposed to this is able to provide is an impression of moral superiority. 3) Please explain the perverse incentives that exist in this arc of a story. Say that a father is painfully dying of cancer and is completely broke. He's very soon going to leave his wife and kids alone without even enough money to bury him, let alone live afterwards. If he had an opportunity for some cash for some medical tests to give his family a chance afterwards, isn't this a better situation for them than not having this option? 4) I'm sure we both wish there were some different systems for living and helping people. But really as a practical matter, I'm thinking through a lens of families that lose the breadwinner. Without both money and guidance, the kids can sometimes have their entire lives spiral out of control. I've known some families that lost the working father at a very young age. It takes a substantial support network for the children to not become degenerate twerps in this case. Money would help these survivors' lives immensely more than having nothing. 5) Speaking of incentives, one of the worst conceivable effects on society comes from not recognizing the absolute sovereignty of an individual. This is how we get the war on drugs which features all kinds of horrific things (throwing people in cages, gang violence, and many more troubling things), which IMO have an impact that should be far more shocking to the conscience than anything you can imagine with some rich guy paying a dying guy to do legitimate medical research that, oh yeah, might also be able to advance the state of the world significantly.

logicalmonster 4y ago

1) No offense intended and nothing against the quality of the writing in the comment here, but I can't quite tell if your comment is written by a bot because it just seems to default to such generic phrases. 2) Please note that I didn't suggest selling a loved one's body for experimentation: I suggested that an individual has the right to choose what happens with their own body. That is an extremely important distinction in this matter. 3) I don't see how a poor family having the option of a financial windfall when they're losing their family breadwinner does anything but alleviate whatever "systemic inequalities" might exist. If somebody is dying either way, isn't their family having some money putting them in a better situation for their future than having no money? You can still disagree with the ethics of this of course, but just as far as the financial situation, I cannot understand any logic that says that a family is financially better off with no money rather than money.

kevviiinn 4y ago
Maybe exploitation of the vulnerable just isn't apparent to someone so logical You seem to view everything through the lens of money and nothing else, you don't consider the externalities of having a system where capital owners can further exploit those in precarious situations and you don't seem to understand that that creates incredibly perverse incentives
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  1) Nice banter, but I still don't see how a guarantee of no money is a better outcome for vulnerable people than a choice of having money. Why are people called vulnerable in the first place? It's usually because they have no money. I think it's good for them to have the choice of having some. 2) We might use slightly different language, but we're both viewing reality through a lens of money, because that's an important part of life. The difference is that I'm trying to think of a system that might be able to help some people, while all everybody who is opposed to this is able to provide is an impression of moral superiority. 3) Please explain the perverse incentives that exist in this arc of a story. Say that a father is painfully dying of cancer and is completely broke. He's very soon going to leave his wife and kids alone without even enough money to bury him, let alone live afterwards. If he had an opportunity for some cash for some medical tests to give his family a chance afterwards, isn't this a better situation for them than not having this option? 4) I'm sure we both wish there were some different systems for living and helping people. But really as a practical matter, I'm thinking through a lens of families that lose the breadwinner. Without both money and guidance, the kids can sometimes have their entire lives spiral out of control. I've known some families that lost the working father at a very young age. It takes a substantial support network for the children to not become degenerate twerps in this case. Money would help these survivors' lives immensely more than having nothing. 5) Speaking of incentives, one of the worst conceivable effects on society comes from not recognizing the absolute sovereignty of an individual. This is how we get the war on drugs which features all kinds of horrific things (throwing people in cages, gang violence, and many more troubling things), which IMO have an impact that should be far more shocking to the conscience than anything you can imagine with some rich guy paying a dying guy to do legitimate medical research that, oh yeah, might also be able to advance the state of the world significantly.