There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die. You are the only compatible donor available.
Should you be forced you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?
Why or why not?
My Kidney Challenge
Moderator: Moderators
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 226 times
- Been thanked: 321 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #31I appreciate that. My interest lies in assessing the merits of the analogy in the OP -- which I take to be, broadly, the topic of the thread -- so you'll excuse me if I don't address every question inquiring about my personal view on tangential topics.
My primary critique of the OP analogy is that it doesn't seem to account for moral responsibility. I think it is entirely uncontroversial to say that you bear greater moral responsibility when you knew an adverse condition could reasonably result from your actions.
In your scenario here, the freak event leading to Sally's kidney failure could not have been reasonably expected. And so, while you likely bear greater moral responsibility in that scenario compared to the one in the OP, I don't think it compels us to hold you culpable.
'Forced' here also implies a legal action, rather than just a moral obligation. I'm not sure what scenario, if any, would allow me to say that, as a matter of law, forced organ harvesting is warranted, as that is certainly an unusual -- as in 'cruel and unusual' -- punishment.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #32I can't answer that question because there are too many variables. If the person who caused the crash is currently laying unconscious in their car with broken bones, then I can't exactly expect them to be going to help the other person.historia wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 8:32 pmOkay, but that doesn't really answer my question.
I'm asking whether you think you have a greater obligation to provide aid than a bystander. Not just whether you should help, but whether you must help because you are morally (if not also legally) required to do so.
At this point I can only surmise that your answer to that question is 'no', you don't think that someone who caused a car accident has any greater moral responsibility to help the victims than someone driving past the scene later. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I personally don't hold that a fertilized egg is a person, but I've created this analogy for those who hold that it is, the "life begins at conception" crowd.historia wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 8:32 pmYou're undermining your own analogy here, though.Kylie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:13 pmOnly if we consider that a fertilized egg is a person. I do not.historia wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 11:18 amSure, I'm just noting here that your digression about heart surgery and broken legs was not germane.Kylie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:36 amBut it does apply to a kidney transplant where the recipient is going to die if they don't get one.historia wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 2:05 am
Clearly, there is an important difference between abortion and other medical procedures: abortion uniquely involves two lives, not just one. That gives it this moral dimension that requires a balancing of the rights of the two lives involved based on circumstances -- as is true of other aspects of the law where two people's rights come into conflict. That simply doesn't apply to, say, heart surgery or a broken leg.
Each element in the kidney analogy should represent something in the abortion scenario, right? I take it that the person with the functioning kidney represents the mother. Likewise, the kidney is the womb. And Sally represents the unborn child, right?
Sally is clearly a person. So, if the unborn child (or "fertilized egg") is not also a person, then the two scenarios are not parallel, and your analogy breaks down.
I would say I have a greater motivation to save my child over that of a stranger, but I don't see how I could justifiably say that my child's life is worth more than the life of someone else's child.historia wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 8:32 pmAgain, I've answered two questions on this point already, and you have yet to respond to my question once. I'm willing to answer your continuing questions here, but not if you're just going to ignore mine. I'm here to debate, not give an interview.Kylie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 10:13 pmSo you think it's morally acceptable to let a plane filled with hundreds of children crash, killing everyone on board just so you can save your own child? How many children does it take before you'd save them instead of your own child?
Do you think you have a greater moral obligation to help your own child versus a stranger?
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9227
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #33It's clear that as we become more cells then we can live without some of them until there is a catastrophic failure. I agree with that.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 6:28 pm [Replying to Wootah in post #19Haircuts and nail-trimming are murder? I think that blurs the line between human material and human life.Given that our cells from t = 0 to t = now are working to propagate us over time then whatever we kill at t=0 to t=now is a human. So if killing humans is wrong, then it's wrong at t=0 or t=now.
Edit: Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here. You seem to be arguing that ending all cellular life at any point is killing a human. As I cited elsewhere, there are major religious perspectives in disagreement with that.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9389
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #34Thanks for clarifying. I have no other questions at this time your honor.historia wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:36 pmI appreciate that. My interest lies in assessing the merits of the analogy in the OP -- which I take to be, broadly, the topic of the thread -- so you'll excuse me if I don't address every question inquiring about my personal view on tangential topics.
My primary critique of the OP analogy is that it doesn't seem to account for moral responsibility. I think it is entirely uncontroversial to say that you bear greater moral responsibility when you knew an adverse condition could reasonably result from your actions.
In your scenario here, the freak event leading to Sally's kidney failure could not have been reasonably expected. And so, while you likely bear greater moral responsibility in that scenario compared to the one in the OP, I don't think it compels us to hold you culpable.
'Forced' here also implies a legal action, rather than just a moral obligation. I'm not sure what scenario, if any, would allow me to say that, as a matter of law, forced organ harvesting is warranted, as that is certainly an unusual -- as in 'cruel and unusual' -- punishment.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3529
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1141 times
- Been thanked: 734 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #35If that's really true then the people walking around are zombies, or maybe even animals, and treating them as such wouldn't be wrong.Wootah wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:03 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #26]
And that is the biggest fallacy of the pro-murder side. None of us is free-living or able to live in isolation from society. Most people are not as alive, conscious and aware as a baby. A baby constantly tries to grow and learn about where it is and its environment, most people in our society don't do that anymore. Babies are way more human than us.
I don't think everyone is like this and more importantly I don't think we can know if a person is like this, but if I do know and it's really true that he's a zombie then his life has no value. If the baby is looking around trying to discover things then it is sentient and its life has value.
But I don't buy basing value on what something will become because then we can kill the baby anyway because it will become a zombie.
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9227
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #36Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
- historia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 6:41 pm
- Has thanked: 226 times
- Been thanked: 321 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #37That's surprising to hear.
Sure, that's obvious. My previous comments, the Illinois law we looked at, and your own comments above ("anyone who can help . . .") are all concerned with the more common scenario where you are able to provide aid.
Let's try one more time, then: Do you think that someone who caused a car accident, and is able to help the victims in the other car, has any greater moral responsibility to do so than someone driving past the scene later?
Can I take that as a 'yes' to my question then?
The assertion that you have a greater moral obligation to help your own child does not entail the further claim that your child's life is in some absolute sense "worth more" than a stranger's.
Instead, it's just asserting that your relationship to your child enjoins upon you certain duties and obligations that go beyond those you would have toward a stranger. It's an assertion about you, not your child.
-
- Apprentice
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
- Has thanked: 21 times
- Been thanked: 63 times
Re: My Kidney Challenge
Post #38Glad to surprise you.
I would personally say they do, but then again, I'd say that we should all have some moral responsibility.Sure, that's obvious. My previous comments, the Illinois law we looked at, and your own comments above ("anyone who can help . . .") are all concerned with the more common scenario where you are able to provide aid.
Let's try one more time, then: Do you think that someone who caused a car accident, and is able to help the victims in the other car, has any greater moral responsibility to do so than someone driving past the scene later?
But, of course, the question is whether the person who causes the accident believes they have a greater moral responsibility.
No you may not.
Motivation to do something is not the same thing as a moral responsibility to do that thing.
I said motivation, not obligation.The assertion that you have a greater moral obligation to help your own child does not entail the further claim that your child's life is in some absolute sense "worth more" than a stranger's.
Instead, it's just asserting that your relationship to your child enjoins upon you certain duties and obligations that go beyond those you would have toward a stranger. It's an assertion about you, not your child.