rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
I honestly thought this wasn't an abortion thread and replied accordingly. I feel so....dirty.
If its your body, should you be able to sell your organs?
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
As much as I'm sure you don't want me to, GhostWriter, I can actually unravel this one.
Aborted fetuses don't have any cash value ( or at least I'm not aware if they do, ) so there's no perverse incentive for low-income people to sell their fetuses.
Low income people, those least able to get the follow-up care they'll need for only having one kidney, for instance, are going to be the most tempted to sell organs. Not coincidentally, a lot ( not all, maybe not even most ) low income people lack foresight and judgement. In other words, you're brewing a ready-made public health crisis by allowing people to sell their organs.
Stick to saying abortion is murder because this argument isn't that solid.
Aborted fetuses don't have any cash value ( or at least I'm not aware if they do, ) so there's no perverse incentive for low-income people to sell their fetuses.
Low income people, those least able to get the follow-up care they'll need for only having one kidney, for instance, are going to be the most tempted to sell organs. Not coincidentally, a lot ( not all, maybe not even most ) low income people lack foresight and judgement. In other words, you're brewing a ready-made public health crisis by allowing people to sell their organs.
Stick to saying abortion is murder because this argument isn't that solid.
rlf hit the nail on the head (with both posts, tbh). The problem is not so much the idea of deciding what to do with your body, as preventing exploitation. I doubt people would have much of a problem with selling your organs, if that's what you wanted to do, if there was no chance that you'd act out of acute need or imperfect information. It's hard to think of a circumstance in which someone could make a valid contract for the sale of their organs (if you'd not been pressured into it by anyone at all, and it was an entirely voluntary decision, then there'd be no argument of undue influence, duress or unconscionable dealing; but that situation hardly seems likely). If there's no valid contract, the remedy is rescission. But you can't rescind an organ sale. Contract law does not provide a satisfactory remedy, so if there is to be any sort of protection, it must come before the point of sale, to prevent the invalid contract being entered into in the first place.
There may be other circumstances that contract doesn't cover either. Like selling a kidney because you desperately need the money, although the buyer has not engaged in any vitiating conduct (i.e. the buyer is perfectly innocent, believing that you are making a fully informed decision not borne out of desperation; if the buyer knows you are acting out of desperation, that'd probably be unconscionable dealing, and the contract would be invalid). That would be valid in a contractual sense, so there could be no contractual remedy, but the only real difference is that the pressure is coming from a third party.
There may be other circumstances that contract doesn't cover either. Like selling a kidney because you desperately need the money, although the buyer has not engaged in any vitiating conduct (i.e. the buyer is perfectly innocent, believing that you are making a fully informed decision not borne out of desperation; if the buyer knows you are acting out of desperation, that'd probably be unconscionable dealing, and the contract would be invalid). That would be valid in a contractual sense, so there could be no contractual remedy, but the only real difference is that the pressure is coming from a third party.
GhostWriter16
Deity
This wasn't really an argument of mine against abortion, I actually do take the position that a woman (Or anyone capable of consent for that matter) should be allowed to sell their organs. But that they shouldn't be allowed to kill a fetus.
What I saw as an inconsistency is the "Its her body" argument being applied for abortion while NOT being applied for the selling of organs.
I'd say you have a valid case here (I reject it on libertarian grounds, of course) but that really rules out the "Its her body" defense for abortion. "Its her body, unless she's selling it" doesn't work as well as a defense
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
My Baktun resolution remains unfulfilled
Lord of Elves
Suede-Denim Secret Police
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 6,976
GW is a selective listener.
Basically this.
Sure, up to one kidney. Buying organs though should be a capital offence.
lovett
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 2,570
There is an interesting point here despite the rather tangential link to abortion. The point is this:
Many people believe in the thesis of self-ownership. This is the thesis that we own ourselves and have the fullest possible property rights over ourselves. It is not just libertarians who will endorse this thesis. It is a very attractive proposition. It explains why people are not allowed to use our body without our consent (taking one persons organs to save five lives, for instance), force us into doing things we do not wish to do and generally exert particular kinds of control over us. It is attractive for other reasons. If we can establish the existence of basic ownership relations we can get normativity up and running. Ownership relations are normative. We can, if such relations exist, start deriving 'oughts' from the 'is' of ownership. This is what Locke tries to do in hs second treatise. The thesis of self-ownership, if true, form a potential base for a slew of moral obligations,
However, the problem raised in this thread is that alongside the thesis of self-ownership it is also widely believed that one should not be able to sell one's own organs. We can add other things onto this. Many people believe one should not be able to sell oneself into slavery. Many people believe one should not be able to stage a bout of gladiatorial combat -to the death- with another consenting adult. Many people believe that one should not be able to consent to being eaten alive. I could go on. Not all people believe all of the above, but it is rare for somebody to not believe any of it.
There is a contradiction between the beliefs in the previous paragraph and the thesis of self-ownership. That contradiction is relatively clear; if we have full property rights in ourselves we should be able to sell our organs. After all, having unrestricted property rights in a thing means one can do exactly as one likes with it. The same goes for the others things on that list. If we have unrestricted property rights in a thing we can give it away permanently, so we should be able to sell ourselves into slavery, and so on and so forth. The thesis of self-ownership contradicts with the beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do these things.
What GW does in response to this is rather amusing, and a good example of when pre-dialectical commitment to an ideology leads one into the absurd. He reasons thus: Because the thesis of self-ownership is true then all those beliefs in the second paragraph must be false! We ought be able to sell our organs, sell ourselves into slavery, stage paid-for gladiatorial combat and so on and so forth. After all, the thesis of self-ownership entails we ought be able to do all these things.
To people less committed to the thesis that will quite rightly seem incredible. They will reason the other way; because (some of) the beliefs in the second paragraph are true then the thesis of self-ownership must be false! We don't have the fullest possible property rights in ourselves.
There are a number of ways one who reasons such might continue from here. They might reason that we have some sort of limited property right in ourselves, but this right is still basic. There is nothing explaining the possession of this right, it is a fundamental (normative) fact about the universe. But this seems implausible; it just seems odd that there could be nothing explaining why our property rights in ourselves were limited in a fairly defined and detailed manner. It would be far more satisfying if we decided self-ownership wasn't a basic feature of our normative reality; self-ownership rights were explained by other rights.
This a different way someone might continue to reason, and a more plausible one. The person who reasons like this will say things like the following: the argument above shows that elf-ownership rights aren't basic. To the extent that we do own ourselves, that ownership is grounded on more fundamental rights - or normative facts. And here they might go many different ways in explaining what those facts are, too many to enumerate here. In this thread exploitation has been talked about, and the exposition in this regards might go something like this: Everybody has a right to avoid exploitation, and self-ownership is useful in a number of ways in avoiding exploitation. Hence, there everyone is a prima facie self-owner. But allowing people to sell their organs or contract themselves into slavery engenders exploitation and thereby violated these rights. Hence, self-ownership is restricted in that it does not entail the right to do these things.
Alternatively, we might base the right of self-ownership on dignity. We might say the following: everyone has an inherent dignity. This dignity is well displayed in self-ownership rights. But selling ones organs is a contravention of this dignity. Hence, self-ownership rights don't extend to this sort of sale. Or we might ground self-ownership in welfare, or autonomy or equality or any combination of these things. I won't give an exposition of these three; hopefully the story should be familiar by now.
In any case, the point is that the contradiction I talk about above strongly pushes us into rejecting the thesis of self-ownership. Precisely, it tells us that our self-ownership rights are not fundamental. They cry out for some further justification. Property rights, at least in ourselves, do not form the singular groundwork for an adequate moral or political philosophy. They stand in need of some a more solid bedrock. We need to go beyond property rights, so the issues identified in this thread imply, to do moral philosophy properly.
Many people believe in the thesis of self-ownership. This is the thesis that we own ourselves and have the fullest possible property rights over ourselves. It is not just libertarians who will endorse this thesis. It is a very attractive proposition. It explains why people are not allowed to use our body without our consent (taking one persons organs to save five lives, for instance), force us into doing things we do not wish to do and generally exert particular kinds of control over us. It is attractive for other reasons. If we can establish the existence of basic ownership relations we can get normativity up and running. Ownership relations are normative. We can, if such relations exist, start deriving 'oughts' from the 'is' of ownership. This is what Locke tries to do in hs second treatise. The thesis of self-ownership, if true, form a potential base for a slew of moral obligations,
However, the problem raised in this thread is that alongside the thesis of self-ownership it is also widely believed that one should not be able to sell one's own organs. We can add other things onto this. Many people believe one should not be able to sell oneself into slavery. Many people believe one should not be able to stage a bout of gladiatorial combat -to the death- with another consenting adult. Many people believe that one should not be able to consent to being eaten alive. I could go on. Not all people believe all of the above, but it is rare for somebody to not believe any of it.
There is a contradiction between the beliefs in the previous paragraph and the thesis of self-ownership. That contradiction is relatively clear; if we have full property rights in ourselves we should be able to sell our organs. After all, having unrestricted property rights in a thing means one can do exactly as one likes with it. The same goes for the others things on that list. If we have unrestricted property rights in a thing we can give it away permanently, so we should be able to sell ourselves into slavery, and so on and so forth. The thesis of self-ownership contradicts with the beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do these things.
What GW does in response to this is rather amusing, and a good example of when pre-dialectical commitment to an ideology leads one into the absurd. He reasons thus: Because the thesis of self-ownership is true then all those beliefs in the second paragraph must be false! We ought be able to sell our organs, sell ourselves into slavery, stage paid-for gladiatorial combat and so on and so forth. After all, the thesis of self-ownership entails we ought be able to do all these things.
To people less committed to the thesis that will quite rightly seem incredible. They will reason the other way; because (some of) the beliefs in the second paragraph are true then the thesis of self-ownership must be false! We don't have the fullest possible property rights in ourselves.
There are a number of ways one who reasons such might continue from here. They might reason that we have some sort of limited property right in ourselves, but this right is still basic. There is nothing explaining the possession of this right, it is a fundamental (normative) fact about the universe. But this seems implausible; it just seems odd that there could be nothing explaining why our property rights in ourselves were limited in a fairly defined and detailed manner. It would be far more satisfying if we decided self-ownership wasn't a basic feature of our normative reality; self-ownership rights were explained by other rights.
This a different way someone might continue to reason, and a more plausible one. The person who reasons like this will say things like the following: the argument above shows that elf-ownership rights aren't basic. To the extent that we do own ourselves, that ownership is grounded on more fundamental rights - or normative facts. And here they might go many different ways in explaining what those facts are, too many to enumerate here. In this thread exploitation has been talked about, and the exposition in this regards might go something like this: Everybody has a right to avoid exploitation, and self-ownership is useful in a number of ways in avoiding exploitation. Hence, there everyone is a prima facie self-owner. But allowing people to sell their organs or contract themselves into slavery engenders exploitation and thereby violated these rights. Hence, self-ownership is restricted in that it does not entail the right to do these things.
Alternatively, we might base the right of self-ownership on dignity. We might say the following: everyone has an inherent dignity. This dignity is well displayed in self-ownership rights. But selling ones organs is a contravention of this dignity. Hence, self-ownership rights don't extend to this sort of sale. Or we might ground self-ownership in welfare, or autonomy or equality or any combination of these things. I won't give an exposition of these three; hopefully the story should be familiar by now.
In any case, the point is that the contradiction I talk about above strongly pushes us into rejecting the thesis of self-ownership. Precisely, it tells us that our self-ownership rights are not fundamental. They cry out for some further justification. Property rights, at least in ourselves, do not form the singular groundwork for an adequate moral or political philosophy. They stand in need of some a more solid bedrock. We need to go beyond property rights, so the issues identified in this thread imply, to do moral philosophy properly.
Berzerker
Deity
selling your labor aint slavery
I'm actually quite in favor of organ selling, as a concept. The worry of exploitation is a fair one, but I think that the fact of exploitation cannot be avoided in the world. I can easily imagine negotiated trades that would be win-win. That said, due to artificial (i.e., regulatory) restriction on supply, the market value of organs makes it hard to figure things out.
for example
I would not be able to argue that $5.7 million would be a greatly beneficial transaction. That amount of money could change the destiny of an entire family! But would legality drive down the market price, to the point where exploitation occurred? I worry so, but refusing to allow buyers & sellers to come to a deal - in order to save a life(!) - is a very high price to pay.
To my thinking - we've allowed waitresses and coal miners to sell their lungs, in small increments, for a substandard wage for years. If I'd lose a lung over 20 years for a net salary of $640,000 ($32k x 20), why cannot I sell it now and rack in that huge benefit in the short-term.
I've often thought about donating a kidney: I honestly expect to have replacement organs available by the time I'd 'miss' my kidney, and that would save a life hear-and-now. I'm scared, weak, and cowardly, though, so I don't live up to my moral standards. Would I sell one? Wow, I sure'd like to be allowed to, especially for the prices that I think are currently achievable!
for example
http://pigjockey.com/2010/03/09/top-10-strangest-things-sold-on-ebay/
I would not be able to argue that $5.7 million would be a greatly beneficial transaction. That amount of money could change the destiny of an entire family! But would legality drive down the market price, to the point where exploitation occurred? I worry so, but refusing to allow buyers & sellers to come to a deal - in order to save a life(!) - is a very high price to pay.
To my thinking - we've allowed waitresses and coal miners to sell their lungs, in small increments, for a substandard wage for years. If I'd lose a lung over 20 years for a net salary of $640,000 ($32k x 20), why cannot I sell it now and rack in that huge benefit in the short-term.
I've often thought about donating a kidney: I honestly expect to have replacement organs available by the time I'd 'miss' my kidney, and that would save a life hear-and-now. I'm scared, weak, and cowardly, though, so I don't live up to my moral standards. Would I sell one? Wow, I sure'd like to be allowed to, especially for the prices that I think are currently achievable!
GhostWriter16
Deity
No, he meant actually selling yourself into chattel slavery.
I'm not going to be able to reply to lovett with the degree of detail that he provided in the first place. Sorry for that.
Some libertarians (Such as Walter Block) do indeed take this argument all the way to selling yourself into slavery. I disagree with this, but I'm just saying that the view does exist (Although it is uncommon) in libertarian circles.
The alternative argument is that while you can sell something that you posess (Such as an organ, your labor, or some other kind of property, all the way down to the mundane) you by necessity control your will. Therefore, you can't sell yourself into slavery, because it is simply not possible to sell your will.
I'm inclined to accept this argument. You should be able to sell your labor, or your organs, or any other kind of property, but it is simply not possible to sell "Yourself" since you still control your will. As such, any attempted contract to sell yourself into slavery should simply not be enforced.
I personally wouldn't want to sell any of my organs. I'm not particularly healthy, and I know most people who do it regret it anyways. Its not an idea that interests me. I have full intention of donating all of my organs, but only after I'm dead
That said, it should not be my choice for someone else, if you want to sell you should be allowed to.
The "Exploitation" argument is mostly irrelevant to me. Pretty much ANY transaction can be defined as "Exploitation" if you stretch it. The only way I could buy that argument is if the seller was misinformed. Otherwise, whatever price is mutually agreeable is mutually agreeable, IMO.
I think I'm in principle in favour of allowing people to sell their organs. I could well imagine that there are situations where a favourable deal could be made. E.g. you have two perfectly fine kidneys but are about to die soon because of some other reason. If you sell one of your kidneys, you can make that trip round the world that you always wanted to do, before you die.
I don't think there is a particular part of morality involved in selling body parts. If you are allowed to sell your labour if sperm banks are allowed, if you are allowed to work as a mercenary risking death, then why not selling organs? (Incidentally, I think this discussion goes largely along the lines of if prostitution should be allowed.)
Practically however, exploitation would be a huge issue here, even more than with prostitution, and I don't think I'll witness a society where allowing this will not lead to huge amount of badness.
I don't think there is a particular part of morality involved in selling body parts. If you are allowed to sell your labour if sperm banks are allowed, if you are allowed to work as a mercenary risking death, then why not selling organs? (Incidentally, I think this discussion goes largely along the lines of if prostitution should be allowed.)
Practically however, exploitation would be a huge issue here, even more than with prostitution, and I don't think I'll witness a society where allowing this will not lead to huge amount of badness.
GhostWriter16
Deity
I think prostitution should be legal as well. No-harm principle and all that.
I think this guy handles the abortion issue pretty well:
Link to video.
Link to video.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
If organlegging was legal, you would run into situations like what continue to occur in Israel.
Haaretz: Interpol hunts two Israelis for Kosovo organ trafficking
Haaretz: Report: Israeli suspected of running Ukraine organ trafficking ring
The Isareli government has started using a different approach that will hopefully help to alleviate the shortage of organs:
Haaretz: Interpol hunts two Israelis for Kosovo organ trafficking
Haaretz: Report: Israeli suspected of running Ukraine organ trafficking ring
The Isareli government has started using a different approach that will hopefully help to alleviate the shortage of organs:
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
Tigers are endangered, humans are not. It is better to feed the fetus to a tiger and allow them to get the kill count.
~Corsair#01~
Deity
It's completely consistent if you adopt the position that the purpose of law and government is to maximise human well-being.
Freedom to abort can be understood in terms of the well-being of the mother, likewise banning organ sale can be justified by the same.
Another thing that follows from this is mandatory organ donation on death (with an opt-out), which has been discussed here before.
You can disagree all you like, but there's nothing inconsistent about any of these views.
True, you can always stretch things. But 'misinformed' is a pretty big deal and it can happen for reasons as diverse as fraud to just an imbalance of intelligence.
Pre-dialectical commitment ..., this post is amazing but could use some dumbing down.
Now that Obamacare has passed, every adult must spend $1000+ in the future for health insurance merely for being alive. That is, unless you have the political pull to get one of those waivers.
Still think you own yourself?
Think you own your house or property? Try not paying property taxes for more than 3 years and see what happens.
According to some, there is no such thing as a right. Everything is negotiable.
Similar threads
