Is ‘speciesism’ as bad as racism or sexism?

[Angst]

I'm a libertarian who believes very strongly in personal choice and self-ownership, as well as the nonagression principle. Treating other people's bodies as a resource to be mined is anathema to me on multiple levels. Organ donation is beautiful when it's voluntary done by a living donor, or when it's done by a deceased person's kin in loving memory of them. Ignoring the consent factor reduces the 'donor' from a person to a bag of spare parts and is abhorrent.

there's a side issue tho, at least rn, that dead bodies as far as i understand aren't really... the property of anyone? not even the body itself. it's dead.

they're, like, dead. they're gone. the person that's now a body doesn't exist anymore, its connection to the living person is mostly just resemblance. i'm all for allowing people their ceremonial wishes, but we're in a situation here where the bodies have no concrete use anymore, they don't legally belong to anyone, but certain uses of it are blocked because of legal rights protecting it in a weird veil of sentimentality.

i'm not actually arguing for universal donorship btw. i'm just pointing out that like - universal donorship is not against the nonagression principle, and it doesn't actually violate anyone's property. at least it's like that in current legislation in the west (in general). so i'm asking - how does this interweave with your view?

 

[Remorseless1]

Forcing people to surrender the corpse of a newly-dead loved for organ transplant is sick. Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone is an organ, which I am, but if you support the notion of "my body, my choice" then forcing people to do something like this is the next step toward Soylent Green.

That being said, I strongly recommend people sign up for organ donation.

 

[Doug1943]

To answer this question, we would have to be more precise in defining "sexism" and "racism". Species are different in many ways. So are human sexes, and races. So what?

As humanity has slowly crawled up out of the mud, we have gotten kinder, both to animals, and to previously-submerged groups within our own species.

One reason that this has happened, is because we have been able to afford to, as we have conquered more and more of nature, and have become wealthier.

Perhaps this will happen with animals as well. it's just a matter of time before we are able to raise animal protein, on a mass, and economic, scale, in a vat. So we'll be able to eat lamb and pork and beef, without killing anything. And we'll be able to re-purpose millions of acres of grazing land. (Unless we destroy ourselves in a big stupid war first.)

 

[amadeus]

how does this interweave with your view?

I’m not the person you asked, and I generally agree with your view here.

However, my concern stems from what could be made as an ultra-utilitarian argument: if someone is injured and has organs that can save two people, the maximal utility would be achieved by letting the injured person expire and then harvesting their organs.

What assurances could I have this would not happen?

 

[Angst]

I’m not the person you asked, and I generally agree with your view here.

However, my concern stems from what could be made as an ultra-utilitarian argument: if someone is injured and has organs that can save two people, the maximal utility would be achieved by letting the injured person expire and then harvesting their organs.

What assurances could I have this would not happen?

there are indeed no assurances to hinder that, and there are real qualms about the consequences of removing sentimentality from the equation, and questions about the fact that it would incentivise the government to, sometimes, having more people dead. sentimentality, if anything, blocks that (when respected by the government)

Forcing people to surrender the corpse of a newly-dead loved for organ transplant is sick. Yes, it would be wonderful if everyone is an organ, which I am, but if you support the notion of "my body, my choice" then forcing people to do something like this is the next step toward Soylent Green.

That being said, I strongly recommend people sign up for organ donation.

again, i'm actually not quite the proponent of such a policy. but i do question why i'm not. i believe it comes down to respecting sentimentality.* i actually respect of the feelings of the people related to the disease. policy, in the end, should be for the sake of happiness. however, i think it's important to stress that this is not really a question of "my body, my choice"; the deceased is not a person. it is not a violation of personhood or property to dismember the dead, unless you want to restructure the legal state of property of a corpse to belonging to someone (it is currently in a legal no-man's-land where you are not allowed to do certain things to a corpse, but noone owns it, nor does it, itself, have any real rights, if that makes sense. not even loved ones owns the corpse, that is the current state of affairs).

*on this note, like - i also like the idea of stuff like hospital priests or the similar, which may calm people, but lie with false promises. there is a lot of policy that is technically wasteful in the fiscal sense, but serves to make people happy. which, again, is the point of policy.

 

[Lexicus]

So are human sexes, and races.

Please, tell the court how the "races" differ.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

if you support the notion of "my body, my choice" then forcing people to do something like this is the next step toward Soylent Green.

But it isn't their body? It's a corpse they were related to.

 

[Yeekim]

Forcing people to surrender the corpse of a newly-dead loved for organ transplant is sick.

Well, I support an opt-out system - with an additional condition that by opting out, one also automatically opts out from benefitting from organ donations.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, I support an opt-out system - with an additional condition that by opting out, one also automatically opts out from benefitting from organ donations.

Sounds similar to the credits system in China ^^
Imo, while on the surface it seems fair (you only can have access to organs if you signed your own body to be used for organs), it's not practical. For starters, afaik those organs come mostly from people who died abruptly or young, while very old people would carry largely useless organs already=> there is very little chance the organ donator themselves would have had time to benefit from organ donation (only a tiny part of the population does as things are...)
Another issue, of different type, is that in most cases it's next of kin who sign over the organs, and they should never get points for doing such - it wasn't theirs to begin with.

 

[Yeekim]

Sounds similar to the credits system in China ^^
Imo, while on the surface it seems fair (you only can have access to organs if you signed your own body to be used for organs), it's not practical. For starters, afaik those organs come mostly from people who died abruptly or young, while very old people would carry largely useless organs already=> there is very little chance the organ donator themselves would have had time to benefit from organ donation (only a tiny part of the population does as things are...)
Another issue, of different type, is that in most cases it's next of kin who sign over the organs, and they should never get points for doing such - it wasn't theirs to begin with.

Issue #1 does not seem to be much of an issue at all - none of us knows the future either way.
Issue #2 would affect all opt-out systems, some of which exist, afaik. If person's own wishes (or lack of refusal taken as consent) are taken into account, next of kin simply does not need to "sign over" anything.

Of course, the main reason for such additional condition is to discourage opt-outs, rather than abstract "fairness". From my POV, holding on to organs that could save someone's life once you yourself have no more need for them has zero legitimate justifications.

 

[Kyriakos]

Issue #1 does not seem to be much of an issue at all - none of us knows the future either way.
Issue #2 would affect all opt-out systems, some of which exist, afaik. If person's own wishes (or lack of refusal taken as consent) are taken into account, next of kin simply does not need to "sign over" anything.

Of course, the main reason for such additional condition is to discourage opt-outs, rather than abstract "fairness". From my POV, holding on to organs that could save someone's life once you yourself have no more need for them has zero legitimate justifications.

Have you given any thought to how such a system would actually work, even at the most basic level? What is stopping someone from declaring they will give their organs after they die, from doing so only once they are very old and in need of organ donation themselves?
Because it's not like it makes any sense at all to force a specific age (for practical reasons, young) up to which the person has to declare, for all perpetuity, that they will or will not be an organ donor. Their mind can change, decades pass from that arbitrary point when they had to declare.

 

[Akka]

there's a side issue tho, at least rn, that dead bodies as far as i understand aren't really... the property of anyone? not even the body itself. it's dead.

they're, like, dead. they're gone. the person that's now a body doesn't exist anymore, its connection to the living person is mostly just resemblance. i'm all for allowing people their ceremonial wishes, but we're in a situation here where the bodies have no concrete use anymore, they don't legally belong to anyone, but certain uses of it are blocked because of legal rights protecting it in a weird veil of sentimentality.

i'm not actually arguing for universal donorship btw. i'm just pointing out that like - universal donorship is not against the nonagression principle, and it doesn't actually violate anyone's property. at least it's like that in current legislation in the west (in general). so i'm asking - how does this interweave with your view?

It's nearly like we're humans with emotions and a whole pysche that our society should take into account, rather than just machines allowed to function until we can be scuttled for spare parts.

 

[Samson]

It's nearly like we're humans with emotions and a whole pysche that our society should take into account, rather than just machines allowed to function until we can be scuttled for spare parts.

That is a different argument from the "strictly logical" libertarian argument made above.

 

[Yeekim]

Have you given any thought to how such a system would actually work, even at the most basic level? What is stopping someone from declaring they will give their organs after they die, from doing so only once they are very old and in need of organ donation themselves?

Do you understand what opt-out system is?

EDIT: Yes, in theory one could opt out when young and opt back in when older. I don't see many people being weird enough to game the system like this and I don't see it as much of an issue when some do - if at least someone is discouraged from opting out, that is already a win.

If such shenanigans really become a problem, we could further discourage them by having previously opting out affect one's priority in recipient's list even after opting back in. But I doubt that would be necessary.

 

[Kyriakos]

Do you understand what opt-out system is?

Is this supposed to be an answer to my specific questions? I presented how it wouldn't work to either set an arbitrary-forever opt-out date, nor to not have any final date for that.

 

[Yeekim]

Is this supposed to be an answer to my specific questions? I presented how it wouldn't work to either set an arbitrary-forever opt-out date, nor to not have any final date for that.

I edited my original post.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, I think your proposed system wouldn't be accepted in any sane democracy. People pay health insurance for a reason, which isn't to be booted out of healthcare when available.
Reminds one more of calvinist cults, instead of medicinal practice.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Do you understand what opt-out system is?

EDIT: Yes, in theory one could opt out when young and opt back in when older. I don't see many people being weird enough to game the system like this and I don't see it as much of an issue when some do - if at least someone is discouraged from opting out, that is already a win.

If such shenanigans really become a problem, we could further discourage them by having previously opting out affect one's priority in recipient's list even after opting back in. But I doubt that would be necessary.

We have an opt-out system here in Wales. Only 5.9% of people have bothered to opt out.

 

[Yeekim]

Well, I think your proposed system wouldn't be accepted in any sane democracy. People pay health insurance for a reason, which isn't to be booted out of healthcare when available.
Reminds one more of calvinist cults, instead of medicinal practice.

Once again, we are completely at odds regarding how a sane democracy would/ should behave.

 

[Angst]

It's nearly like we're humans with emotions and a whole pysche that our society should take into account, rather than just machines allowed to function until we can be scuttled for spare parts.

what samson said, and yea, i believe what you say here is true. the point is that universal donorship is neither a violation of the non-aggression principle, nor is it a violation of property. there's other stuff going on.

like, set aside the body thing here - understand that what i deal with primarily in life is stuff like music and poetry. i care very much about how our emotions work and that they're important