erislover
I couldn’t agree more.
I was simply making a point as to moral obligations can be freely assumed. Or rejected. The ethical theory put forth a hierarchy of values, obligations, recommandations, advisabilities andsoon.
As for the matter on discussion, I would suggest the cloning of organs, but I’m afraid many would feel horrified.
We already have such a construct. It’s called war.
Ah, I have offended a couple of you. Well, Lizard asked, I answered. And I believe I am right. It is not my obligation to save the life of some random person. I could happily will my organs to someone that I respected & wanted to live, were that both workable & hypothetically necessary.
But consider: If I donate my intact body to science as a teaching hospital cadaver, surely a worthy act, then :eek: no one’s life is being prolonged by organ donation. Is this immoral? I bet there are a lot more organ donors than cadaver donors, & that I’d be providing a public service few would.
Now, if someone decides as a matter of policy to harvest my body anyway, fine; it’s out of my control. But I’m not going to tell them to do it, because I don’t think it’s morally necessary. I do have an unconventional moral sensibility, & I take it seriously.
You know, in a way, this entire thread is a little like “is it immoral not to give to charity?” The only wrinkles that I can see are the religious angle, and the fear of doctors giving up early to organ harvest. And maybe the gangs who knock people out, cut out their kidneys, and put them in a bathtub full of ice. 
If it isn’t immoral not to give money to charity (and I’m not sure who would argue otherwise), what exactly is the significant difference between this and organ donation? After all, every day someone doesn’t give money is another day the poor go without, which is just as life-threatening in many ways…
(And just to reveal all personal biases, an old and dear friend of mine with cystic fibosis had his quality of life GREATLY improved, if not saved, because some middle-aged Texan woman put herself down as an organ donor and gave him the lungs he needed. I must admit I’m uncomfortable with the idea that some folks think it’s okay to sacrifice him because he has a disease that might cause other organs of his to degenerate, but I realize that’s because I’ve known him for years and, most likely, none of you do. In fact, I wonder if he’ll see this thread…?)
Cecil discusses this, actually. See here for further info,
Fenris
I think there’s a very palpable difference! After you die, your organs would be wasted unless they’re donated to someone. The same can not be said of your material possessions.
FTR, I happen to think that we should be giving sacrificially to help the underprivileged. If someone is capable of giving, and yet routinely refuses, then I think that person needs a hard dose of empathy. At the same time, I recognize that there are specific circumstances wherein one might legitimately choose not to give – when one has reason to believe that the funds would be squandered, for example. (I say that very cautiously, since in my experience, many people use that cop-out as an excuse to give a mere pittance, or to not give at all.)
That would be laudable, but with all due respect, that situation is disconsonant with the two arguments that you presented earlier.
Lizard, I’d also add an argument against your idea that older people (however many of them are organ recipients) aren’t as worthy because their productive years are behind them. While older people may not be economically productive, they can and do have positive impacts on their families. This is stretching it a bit, but for the sake of argument who is to say that the positive presence of a grandparent in a child’s life won’t (in the long) run help that child to grow up to be a better, more productive person than they would have had they not had grandma in their life.
True. I meant that statement as a hypothetical, because I think the “worth” of a person’s life cannot be easily measured in economic terms.
But obviously, all people don’t measure “worth” the same. Insurance companies already have systems that decide if it’s a bad financial risk to pay for treatment that could prolong a person’s life. In that instance, the person’s life has a dollar value. The point is, we ALREADY make decisions about who will live or die; how is doing that with regards to organ donation any different?
Lizard, I don’t think your example demonstrates that a human life has a dollar value. The money spent by an insurance company is given in exchange for the medical treatment, not for the human’s life. There’s a major difference between the two.
As for making decisions about who will live or die, just ask an emergency room doctor what this means. There are times when one must choose to let one person die in order to save others – when medical and financial resources are limited, for example. However, no responsible physician would let someone expire just because “we already make decisions about who will live or die.”
How about if we give organ donors tax breaks. That way there is a financial incentive while maining equal opputunity to recieve transplants from the rich and poor alike. Also, organ donation does a lot more for the general good than donating money to most charities (Museums, Ballet, Historic Preservation, etc.)
Please explain. How does saving one life compare to preserving our heritage for countless number of future generations? I’m genuinely curious. This is the opposite of what is usually argued.
Presumably, a human life has greater worth than merely preserving a part of one’s heritage. I, for one, heartily subscribe to that view.