Organ donation

@Mark Von Lewis

I hope you never have need to require an organ transplant.

Overall judging by the reactions in this thread I'd go for an opt out system for organ donation, I myself am signed up as an organ donor, they can take whatever they need as I'll be dead.

I'm also quite astounded by the people who would rather keep their organs, without any reason but 'they are mine/property' as it does seem very pointless, they will either rot/burn or could go towards helping someone survive longer. It seems like an obvious choice.

By the powers invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I pronounce you guilty of paedophilia!

As, while I'm alive, I obviously need my organs. When I'm dead, I don't. And saying I'm required to actively make myself dead so I no longer need my organs is a ridiculously moronic strawman argument.

Then saying I'm required to give up my organs after I'm dead must be equally moronic, no? After all, it's only one more net life saved.

EDIT: Dude, you'd be dead. Dead people don't own things.

This is so obviously false it's laughable.

Did you know Tolkien (or rather, his estate) still owns the rights to Lord of the Rings? Any time anybody wants to make a spin off of LOTR, they have to pay a dead guy his royalities.

Also, if dead people really don't own things than a will has no legal basis. If you instantly lose ownership of your property upon death you can't very well give it to people.

edited 5th Jun '11 6:55:08 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

anne; If I forget to change it they don't take my organs by mistake.

Again it doesn't matter what LH or Jeysei or the rest of you think, You can not take what is not yours or violate someones personal or religious wishes to suit your ends or your views on what you or others want.

It is morally wrong in every sense of the word and using anything resembling taking that choice away is wrong.

It has already been pointed out why you can't just take the organs legally because the corpse is someone elese's property until the family decides what to do with. This is usually decided by the last will and testament which are reflections of the individuals wishes and likely contains information for burial based on preference and religious practice.

If a person has no will and no family to speak of and there is nothing to contradict organ harvest post death fine take their's. Anyone else who has made a conscious choice or has left proof of their wishes needs to be respected.

Who watches the watchmen?

"There are also religious reasons to keep ones body in tact." - The Dead Mans Life

Religion can be used to justify anything. It all depends on what religion you are talking about.

Unless you want to open the door to favouring some religions over others...

That's right, it's part of the estate and is thus still property ''I have control over".

Fight smart, not fair.

Deboss, you're ignoring my question. Why is it that you consider property rights so important? "It is because it is because it is" isn't a very good argument for converting other people to your way of thinking, and it looks like you've got a lot of people to convince.

(Here and elsewhere, I hate hate hate deontological ethics. It's been used to justify so much suffering . . .)

edited 5th Jun '11 6:56:40 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

So is it is for the greater good argument.

Who watches the watchmen?

I missed your question, sorry about that.

It's the standard for which most rights are based, including anti-slavery rights (you own yourself), free speech (you own your opinions and can use them at your discretion), freedom of the press (you have the right to print whatever you want because it's your press/server), you have the right to your religion because it's your time.

Fight smart, not fair.

^^ Heh, I actually built a logical proof for Utilitarian morality based on what I thought were universally accepted principles (though everyone I showed it to thought it was stupid, so . . .)

Anyways, it would probably be off-topic for me to get into that now. But I think everyone here would agree that preserving lives is a goal, if not necessarily the highest goal, so I think the burden of proof is on proving that property rights are the highest goal here.

^ I didn't think you could build a fully functional moral system that way. I honestly have no idea how to proceed now.

edited 5th Jun '11 7:01:38 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Do you want your corpse not to be violated because it affords you peace of mind now, or because it will afford your friends and relatives peace of mind after you've died? Obviously, the corpse itself won't feel anything when the time comes.

Supporting opt-out. As morally empty as it is to hoard one's organs for religious/personal reasons, I don't like the precedent mandatory donation would set.

edited 5th Jun '11 7:01:50 PM by Penguin4Senate

And I suppose you believe it should legally recognized when a person sells themselves into slavery.

edited 5th Jun '11 7:02:59 PM by LoveHappiness

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Since when do moral systems function?

edited 5th Jun '11 7:03:47 PM by Deboss

Fight smart, not fair.

Why is it that you consider property rights so important? "It is because it is because it is" isn't a very good argument for converting other people to your way of thinking, and it looks like you've got a lot of people to convince.

Well, first of all they are rights, and nobody has a right to violate any of my rights for any reason. That's what rights are. If you could take them away they wouldn't be rights.

---

Second, this isn't just about organs, it's about all of my property after death. If I can't keep my lungs after I die, you can't give your kids your life insurance money either. They're both based on the same system and you've got to be consistant: either people can own stuff after they die or they can't.

---

Third, property rights are important after you die for the same reason as they are when you're alive, and property rights are important when you're alive for the same reason all other rights are important when you're alive. You can't take my stuff, at core, because I don't want you to take my stuff. You can't kill me because I don't want to be killed. All rights and in fact all morality are based at core on want and do-not-want.

Now, I can obviously want things to happen after my death. If ignoring my wants before I die is harmful to me, ignoring my wants after I die is just as harmful. Stealing my kidney after I die is just as harmful to me as stealing it before I die.

---

Fourth, why do you think it's wrong to steal someone's kidney while they're alive? They don't need it either, surely it could go to someone who needs a kidney, right?

You must all be selfish greedy people to not have already given up your kidneys! Shame on you! </sarcasm>

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

@Penguin: I would prefer nobody to fuck my corpse. Not that I'd be in a position to care, being dead and all, but thinking that someone might eventually screw my dead body sort of squicks me out.

Sign me up for the peace of mind now crowd.

edited 5th Jun '11 7:06:12 PM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

Welcome to the American Way!

But yes, I would argue that property rights are the base on which all legal systems should be built (which isn't quite the same as moral systems), because property rights are more or less non-subjective, while human life/happiness is highly so.

<><

Nonsense on stilts. Metaphysical rights don't exist. Only legal ones.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Now apply that to the opt in situation—if you forget to opt in then they make the mistake of leaving your organs in. That is also irreversible because there's only a small opening in which you can extract someone's organs for transplant into a live body. If they don't do it soon, it's too late.

So are you saying the rights of slaves don't exist?

edited 5th Jun '11 7:08:08 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

@Deboss: A moral system is (or should be, at least) designed to tell someone what to do in as many circumstances as possible. Starting with my premises, I built one that tells me to favor life and quality of life. Starting with what appear to be completely different premises, you built one that, from your description, covers just as many situations, but comes to completely different conclusions. I don't know how to meaningfully defend my moral system against yours, but I can't see how you can meaningfully defend yours against mine, either. We could easily get into a situation where both of us were strongly, even violently arguing for opposite positions, with neither of us clearly in the right or in the wrong.

This is actually kinda scaring me. All the moral systems I've previously encountered either weren't all that different from mine, or had what I considered fundamental flaws. (Though I'd still consider it a fundamental flaw if I died due to not getting a donated organ . . . I don't care what happens to my body when I'm dead, but I suppose you'd consider it a fundamental flaw if your rights in that regard were violated.)

edited 5th Jun '11 7:08:27 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Welcome to a bigger world!

Call it a "lifelong contract for manual labor" and I say yes, in principle.

Obviously any children they had would not also be slaves, though, because parents do not own their children.

edited 5th Jun '11 7:10:11 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

@feo: You're now entering the Valley of Nietzche.

If you don't go crazy inside it, you'll emerge with a stronger hold on what it is to be moral than before. But be careful.

edited 5th Jun '11 7:10:18 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Repeat after me: Values Dissonance.

Fight smart, not fair.

Re: values

I'm a nihilist. Moral facts do not exist.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

. . . To hell with it. I don't want to die. Most of my moral system is built around not wanting to die. I'm going to say "Screw you" to anyone who gets in the way of my not dying, no matter what moral principles they rally against me. You will fall! And your organs shall be mine!

/evil

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

And I'm a realist: Moral facts do exist.

This thread makes me really happy, because I have never seen an internet debate where the parties involved were this successful in understanding the other sides.

This thread gets a

edited 5th Jun '11 7:16:04 PM by EdwardsGrizzly

<><

You are saying that only legal rights exist. Slaves either have extremely limited legal rights or no rights at all. In that case, are you saying that people who are slaves do not have the right to learn, or the right to be made free, or the right to live without being harmed?

edited 5th Jun '11 7:17:03 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.