Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right, ethics is mostly just opinion. I assume we can all agree that 9/11 wasn't necessarily unethical, and raping little kids may or may not be wrong, depending on our views on that sort of thing....right?
The presence of disagreement doesn't imply a lack of truth.
My comment is a reply that the writer labels another opinion as unethical. The writer infers that the opposite point of view is wrong. You isolate my comment without looking at the context.
I believe you used a fallacious approach to express disagreement on the point I was making by exaggerated examples. Nice try though.
My comment is a reply that the writer labels another opinion as unethical. The writer infers that the opposite point of view is wrong. You isolate my comment without looking at the context.
I believe you used a fallacious approach to express disagreement on the point I was making by exaggerated examples. Nice try though.
Who is "the writer"?
Subjectivism is a view in ethics, but it is far from a consensus view. The majority of moral philosophers are not subjectivists. Many religious people are subjectivists in the sense that if one believes morality depends on God's thoughts, one is a subjectivist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by COJeff
So you want to enforce an idea with no real plan? Why cant you give a straight answer? This is your idea.
I am not introducing a comprehensive plan. I am introducing a general idea. Considering that we disagree on whether this is even a good idea, it doesn't matter what the implementation process would be.
But I don't think implementation would be hard. We could simply treat everyone who dies the same way we currently treat organ donors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Just because something "archaic" it doesn't make it irrelevant.
This is true. But in this instance, the attitude toward dead bodies espoused by many in this thread is unscientific and wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
How much money does a transplant cost, and how much healthcare could be provided to save the lives of others?
On average, transplants cost $1,147,300.
Average chemotherapy is $30,000, so for the cost of one transplant you can save the lives of 38 people.
Naturally, you have refused to address that, since it debases your argument.
So you are opposed to transplants generally, then? So if I have insurance, my insurance company should say "We're not going to pay for your expensive procedure because we could save more lives by buying cheaper procedures for other people?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Your argument is exactly that.
Not only is your argument poorly thought, you disingenuously refuse to state the basis for your claims.
Since you refuse, we might conclude that your argument revolves around yourself or someone you know and organ transplants.
I've stated the basis for my argument countless times. I've done it in probably 30% of my posts. Dead people have no use for their organs, their organs are going to rot in the ground and those organs can be used to save people. That's the basis for my view here. I don't know how you can claim that I haven't made that clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
My post makes no mention of "cell phone data, IRS, Social Security, etc."
I got the post number wrong (it was 210, not 247), but here is the quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Your rights do not terminate upon death. Law enforcement requires warrants signed by a judge to view your cell-phone data, financial data, including warrants to obtain information from the IRS or Social Security Administration, and warrants to obtain information from other federal offices and agencies, like the Department of Defense if the decedent is a veteran and their military records may offer insight.
So again, how is it possible that those are all fundamental human rights and not simply legal rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
But since you brought it up, humans have an inherent right to privacy, which is reiterated by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...
You don't forfeit your rights simply because you engage in a legal commercial transaction with another entity.
That right survives, even in death.
Again with the legal arguments. The Constitution is a legal document. What is the philosophical, not legal, basis for the right to determine what happens to your body after death? As I have pointed out countless times, every other right is simply a right to non-interference: the right to free speech, free religion, pursuit of happiness, etc. The right to determine how your body is disposed of after your death would be completely peculiar because it requires other human beings to do something with your body.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Dictionary definitions are not necessarily correct or accurate, but legal definitions are.
Epistemologists the world over agree that beliefs are simply propositions we hold to be true. That is not even controversial. You are defining the word incorrectly, and there is no legal definition that says otherwise. Besides, words do not derive their meaning from laws. They derive their meaning from usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You misunderstand the fallacy. The use of "ought" or "should" is the basis of the fallacy.
Your claim that organ donations should be mandatory is fallacious on its face.
Any argument that expressly or implicitly uses ought/should is inherently fallacious.
So what are moral philosophers in the business of? Morality is the study of how man OUGHT to act. Saying we ought to do X is far from fallacious. This is philosophy 101.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
The statement "Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should" is an exercise in philosophy and ethics, and had you taken any university level philosophy or ethics courses, you would have come across that very early on in the course.
1. I have a philosophy degree, have done graduate work in philosophy and have published a paper in a respected peer-reviewed philosophy journal.
2. I am not disputing that your statement is false, and I didn't say I had never heard it. I said I am not claiming that we should do something just because we can, thus the statement is inapplicable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Again, the use of ought/should is inherently fallacious.
Again, this is crazy talk. What do you think Kant was referring to with his categorical imperative? How man OUGHT to act!
I think you might be misunderstanding Hume's statement that we "can't derive an ought from an is." That means that we can't take descriptive statements ("Killing is widespread in nature") and derive prescriptive statements ("We should kill each other when we can").
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Not only does the cost of a single transplant potentially deny life-saving treatment to 38 people, it results in an increased risk of cancers:
For a more comprehensive look, a research team led by Dr. Eric A. Engels of NIH's National Cancer Institute (NCI) evaluated medical data from more than 175,000 transplant recipients — about 40% of all organ transplant recipients in the country. Their report appeared in the November 2, 2011, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The researchers found a twofold overall increased risk of cancer among transplant recipients. They noted elevated risk for 32 different types of cancer, some known to be related to infectious agents (such as anal cancer and Kaposi sarcoma) and others unrelated to infections (such as melanoma and thyroid cancer).
Where is the logic in putting an additional financial and resource strain on healthcare resources?
In Chicago in 2007, four patients were infected with HIV from a single donor, while that is rare, you simply don't have the option of effectively screening donors to prevent the transmission of infectious diseases, and doing so would put an additional strain on healthcare resources.
An alternative to organ transplant might be devoting that $1,147,300 per transplant to stem cell research for organ regeneration.
My response above is applicable here: So you are opposed to transplants generally, then? So if I have insurance, my insurance company should say "We're not going to pay for your expensive procedure because we could save more lives by buying cheaper procedures for other people?"
I am not introducing a comprehensive plan. I am introducing a general idea. Considering that we disagree on whether this is even a good idea, it doesn't matter what the implementation process would be.
But a general idea has no merit if it cannot be implemented. As a free person, I have the right to deny you use of my organs up until my time of death, and also have the ability to deny their use to you after my death (by hanging myself in the middle of a forest, for instance, or drowning myself in a lake). The only exception to this would be if I were incapacitated mentally with an intact physiology (brain death). In which case, I can give my medical power of attorney to someone who would act according to my wishes, and deny you use of my organs as well, if that were my will.
Your premise also runs contrary to another societal "good", which is that people should be free to make their own decisions with respect to their property, thoughts, behaviors, or bodies; that they should not be "compelled" by government whenever possible, even for a greater societal good - obviously, these rights stop at the border of actively harming others (criminal behavior). As we have conscientious objectors to the Draft, we would also have to allow conscientious objection to mandatory organ donation.
Inducing behavior is much more palatable, such as in society's compensating an individual's estate for their organs after death. That being said, I am currently an organ donor, whose only "inducement" is the willingness to help those unfortunate enough to need my help. But I do not agree with being compelled by the government to be altruistic, and would resist that to the greatest extent. Some people just don't like being told what to do, I guess - the organic matter which composes my physical being is mine until I decide otherwise, and the default for it is determined by nature - decomposition by oxidation. If organs could be lab-grown and there was no longer need for donors, it would still make societal sense to use my physical remains as hog chow. But only if I give you permission beforehand.
With respect to your premise that "I" cease to exist after physical death, I would submit that to be assumptive and speculative; neither you nor I nor anyone else have access to that information in certainty; my spirit and soul may very well survive death, and may be deeply invested as to what happens to my earthly remains. Being Wittgenstein's Ghost, you should know that as well as anyone. With respect.
But a general idea has no merit if it cannot be implemented.
If the source of my disagreement with COJeff was implementation, I would agree that the implementation plan was relevant here. But COJeff and I have a philosophical disagreement about whether the idea is good or not. No implementation plan in the world would resolve that. That is like two people who disagree on the morality of abortion debating beginning their debate about how abortion facilities should be regulated. Before getting there, you should address the heart of the disagreement.
But like I've said several times, I don't know that there needs to be a big plan. Just treat everyone who dies like we currently treat organ donors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink
As a free person, I have the right to deny you use of my organs up until my time of death, and also have the ability to deny their use to you after my death (by hanging myself in the middle of a forest, for instance, or drowning myself in a lake).
I am not arguing that it is physically impossible to prevent society from using your organs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink
In which case, I can give my medical power of attorney to someone who would act according to my wishes, and deny you use of my organs as well, if that were my will.
I am not arguing that you don't currently have the legal right to not donate your organs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink
Your premise also runs contrary to another societal "good", which is that people should be free to make their own decisions with respect to their property, thoughts, behaviors, or bodies; that they should not be "compelled" by government whenever possible, even for a greater societal good - obviously, these rights stop at the border of actively harming others (criminal behavior). As we have conscientious objectors to the Draft, we would also have to allow conscientious objection to mandatory organ donation.
I agree that people should have these rights. Dead bodies are not people, though. I'm not going to chase this line of reasoning any further because I've addressed it more times than I can count in this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink
the organic matter which composes my physical being is mine until I decide otherwise, and the default for it is determined by nature - decomposition by oxidation.
Your organs are yours as long as you exist. When you no longer exist, you can't own anything. There is no moral "default" here. There is what happens in nature, but that is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curly Q. Bobalink
With respect to your premise that "I" cease to exist after physical death, I would submit that to be assumptive and speculative; neither you nor I nor anyone else have access to that information in certainty; my spirit and soul may very well survive death, and may be deeply invested as to what happens to my earthly remains. Being Wittgenstein's Ghost, you should know that as well as anyone. With respect.
If you do survive after death, your spirit can't depend on your physical body. Your physical body is rotting to soil. Your organs will either become dirt or save a life. To say that they should become dirt just in case your spirit survives and is upset about the fate of your organs is even more wildly speculative. Is your spirit going to be upset about your organs decaying?
At some point, we are running into something akin to Pascal's Wager here. Yes, there is some chance that you survive your death and your spirit cares about your organs being donated. But there is also a chance that you survive your death and your spirit cares that you didn't save a life and instead let your usable organs rot. Possibilities about, and if we are in a state of not knowing one way or the other, it doesn't make sense to assume you would want your organs to rot in the ground.
Plus there are other medical considerations to organ transplants - receiving one:
"Diabetes. Diabetes can be a new problem or a problem that is exacerbated after the transplant. Some transplant medications can be responsible.
"High cholesterol. High cholesterol doesn't have any symptoms itself, but it's still dangerous. It can clog up your blood vessels, possibly damage your donor organ, and eventually lead to heart disease. It's a fairly common side effect of some of the medications used to control your immune system response after a transplant.
"High blood pressure. Again, the medicines you need can aggravate or cause high blood pressure. While it can be a serious condition, it may get better as you taper off your medication. …
"Gastrointestinal problems. This is a fairly common side effect of steroids. Your health care professional may prescribe medication to help. …
"Gout. A buildup of uric acid in the blood can result in gout, a painful inflammation of some joints. It can be caused or worsened by some of the post-transplant medications used to suppress your immune system. Treatment depends on your specific case. It may be possible to change some of your medications to control the condition.
"Anxiety and depression. People who have received a transplant have usually been through a lot of frightening and nerve-racking experiences: coping with a life-threatening disease, waiting for a transplant, recovering from serious surgery and readjusting to life. It's not surprising that many people develop chronic anxiety and depression. Medications can make them worse and cause mood swings. …
"Sexual problems. Some people who have a transplant develop some sexual problems, such as a decreased sex drive or loss of function. These symptoms can be caused by health problems, your medication, stress, or a combination. …
"Unwanted hair growth. The solution to this problem is the obvious: try shaving, waxing, or using drugstore products that remove hair."
I am not introducing a comprehensive plan. I am introducing a general idea. Considering that we disagree on whether this is even a good idea, it doesn't matter what the implementation process would be.
The title of the forum "Great Debates" not introduce general ideas.
All I want to know is how his "mandatory donation" is going to be mandated and enforced. This is your post.
I will also as again, Will you sing the same tune if your organs will go to a person like Donald Trump?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are choices to be made
