My Kidney Challenge

[Kylie]

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?

[historia]

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?

No, you shouldn't be forced to give up a vital organ for another person.

Out of curiosity, were you hoping to relate this analogy to the issue of abortion? Or maybe some other question in moral philosophy?

[Kylie]

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?

No, you shouldn't be forced to give up a vital organ for another person.

Out of curiosity, were you hoping to relate this analogy to the issue of abortion? Or maybe some other question in moral philosophy?

Yeah, it is an abortion analogy. Is it right to make a person use a part of their body to keep someone else alive?

[historia]

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?

No, you shouldn't be forced to give up a vital organ for another person.

Out of curiosity, were you hoping to relate this analogy to the issue of abortion? Or maybe some other question in moral philosophy?

Yeah, it is an abortion analogy. Is it right to make a person use a part of their body to keep someone else alive?

I see. While the analogy makes a good point, the two situations don't seem to be parallel in a couple of key respects.

First, you bear no moral responsibility for Sally needing your kidney. No voluntary action on your part brought about her situation. Whereas in the case of abortion, the couple's actions (assuming they are voluntary) directly lead to the creation of the "someone else" who now needs the mother's womb to survive.

Second, the situation with Sally involves the unnatural use of your vital organs. Your kidney is not designed to be used by someone other than you, even if, thanks to modern medicine, organ transplants are a thing. Whereas in the case of abortion, the mother's womb is designed expressly for the purpose of gestating another person.

Finally, I think we would all agree that we bear greater moral responsibility for the lives of our own children than that of a stranger.

[Kylie]

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?

No, you shouldn't be forced to give up a vital organ for another person.

Out of curiosity, were you hoping to relate this analogy to the issue of abortion? Or maybe some other question in moral philosophy?

Yeah, it is an abortion analogy. Is it right to make a person use a part of their body to keep someone else alive?

I see. While the analogy makes a good point, the two situations don't seem to be parallel in a couple of key respects.

First, you bear no moral responsibility for Sally needing your kidney. No voluntary action on your part brought about her situation. Whereas in the case of abortion, the couple's actions (assuming they are voluntary) directly lead to the creation of the "someone else" who now needs the mother's womb to survive.

This would suggest that you don't care about others, and are happy to let them continue suffering even if you can help them. "Why should I help them? It's not my fault." In any case, what if they are NOT voluntary?

Second, the situation with Sally involves the unnatural use of your vital organs. Your kidney is not designed to be used by someone other than you, even if, thanks to modern medicine, organ transplants are a thing. Whereas in the case of abortion, the mother's womb is designed expressly for the purpose of gestating another person.

Do you also think that we shouldn't do other unnatural things, like fly in aeroplanes, enjoy air conditioning, or communicate with other people over the internet?

Finally, I think we would all agree that we bear greater moral responsibility for the lives of our own children than that of a stranger.

So if you had a choice between saving 100 children you didn't know, or saving your own child, you'd let the 100 children die?

[historia]

No, you shouldn't be forced to give up a vital organ for another person.

Out of curiosity, were you hoping to relate this analogy to the issue of abortion? Or maybe some other question in moral philosophy?

Yeah, it is an abortion analogy. Is it right to make a person use a part of their body to keep someone else alive?

I see. While the analogy makes a good point, the two situations don't seem to be parallel in a couple of key respects.

First, you bear no moral responsibility for Sally needing your kidney. No voluntary action on your part brought about her situation. Whereas in the case of abortion, the couple's actions (assuming they are voluntary) directly lead to the creation of the "someone else" who now needs the mother's womb to survive.

This would suggest that you don't care about others, and are happy to let them continue suffering even if you can help them.

This comment seems misplaced, in that it would have applied more directly to my initial reply that you shouldn't be required to help Sally -- which you otherwise didn't seem to object to -- rather than this second one.

Here I'm simply noting the (from my point of view uncontroversial) point that we bear greater or lesser moral responsibility depending on whether our actions produced harm or an adverse condition in the first place.

If you cause a car accident, for example, don't you think you have a greater moral obligation (as well as legal requirement) to stop and seek help for the people in the other car versus someone uninvolved driving past the accident later?

In any case, what if they are NOT voluntary?

Then the mother does not bear the same moral responsibility.

Second, the situation with Sally involves the unnatural use of your vital organs. Your kidney is not designed to be used by someone other than you, even if, thanks to modern medicine, organ transplants are a thing. Whereas in the case of abortion, the mother's womb is designed expressly for the purpose of gestating another person.

Do you also think that we shouldn't do other unnatural things, like fly in aeroplanes, enjoy air conditioning, or communicate with other people over the internet?

By 'unnatural' here I don't mean 'not in a state of nature', but rather not according to its typical or intended function. Since airplanes are designed to carry passengers, my flying on a plane is not contrary to its intended function.

Likewise, here I'm simply noting that using an organ that is designed to gestate a child to do just that is rather different from removing a healthy organ from your body.

Finally, I think we would all agree that we bear greater moral responsibility for the lives of our own children than that of a stranger.

So if you had a choice between saving 100 children you didn't know, or saving your own child, you'd let the 100 children die?

Yes.

Here we might note a difference, too, between taking no action, which indirectly results in Sally or other strangers dying, versus taking action to directly terminate the life of one's own unborn child. That strikes me as an important moral difference.

[Clownboat]

I see. While the analogy makes a good point, the two situations don't seem to be parallel in a couple of key respects.

First, you bear no moral responsibility for Sally needing your kidney. No voluntary action on your part brought about her situation. Whereas in the case of abortion, the couple's actions (assuming they are voluntary) directly lead to the creation of the "someone else" who now needs the mother's womb to survive.

Second, the situation with Sally involves the unnatural use of your vital organs. Your kidney is not designed to be used by someone other than you, even if, thanks to modern medicine, organ transplants are a thing. Whereas in the case of abortion, the mother's womb is designed expressly for the purpose of gestating another person.

Finally, I think we would all agree that we bear greater moral responsibility for the lives of our own children than that of a stranger.

What if gave a drink to poor Sally that caused the kidney failure? I didn't know it would have the said effect, but there it happened.
Would you then argue that I should be forced to provide my kidney to Sally or should I not be forced even in this scenario?

[Wootah]

I have seen the light and stopped feeding clothing and housing my kids. At 33 enough is enough!

But seriously we all rely on tue bodies of others - other bodies to survive.

[Kylie]

This comment seems misplaced, in that it would have applied more directly to my initial reply that you shouldn't be required to help Sally -- which you otherwise didn't seem to object to -- rather than this second one.

I was responding specifically to your statement, "First, you bear no moral responsibility for Sally needing your kidney. No voluntary action on your part brought about her situation."

Here I'm simply noting the (from my point of view uncontroversial) point that we bear greater or lesser moral responsibility depending on whether our actions produced harm or an adverse condition in the first place.

The person's need is not affected in any way by our responsibility, however.

If you cause a car accident, for example, don't you think you have a greater moral obligation (as well as legal requirement) to stop and seek help for the people in the other car versus someone uninvolved driving past the accident later?

Again, the people trapped in the burning car are likely to want ANYONE to stop and help them.

Then the mother does not bear the same moral responsibility.

That's the funny thing about abortion. It seems that people think that how the situation came about has some bearing in how it should be dealt with.

Can you imagine if other medical conditions were treated the same way?

"No, we aren't going to give you heart surgery, because you've been eating a very fatty diet. It's your own fault."

"I'd love to put a cast on your broken leg, but since you broke it by trying to fly off the roof like Superman with a blanket around your shoulders, I simply can't. It's against my beliefs."

By 'unnatural' here I don't mean 'not in a state of nature', but rather not according to its typical or intended function. Since airplanes are designed to carry passengers, my flying on a plane is not contrary to its intended function.

Likewise, here I'm simply noting that using an organ that is designed to gestate a child to do just that is rather different from removing a healthy organ from your body.

So? if we have the technology to use our body parts in new ways, why should that be considered unnatural?

Yes.

So if someone let your child die so they could save their own, you'd say to them, "Totally understandable, no hard feelings."

Here we might note a difference, too, between taking no action, which indirectly results in Sally or other strangers dying, versus taking action to directly terminate the life of one's own unborn child. That strikes me as an important moral difference.

I admit to be curious as to your thoughts about the trolley problem.

[Clownboat]

I have seen the light and stopped feeding clothing and housing my kids. At 33 enough is enough!

It's amazing you managed to feed 33 children in the first place!

You chose to have them though, so really, it is now on you to care for them. Your choice to not have children (which many seek for women to no longer have) ended when you (or your partner) decided to carry these 33 to term. Not when you had sex by the way.



Those attempting to carry a fetus to term should feel compelled to have a baby IMO.
Those purposfully not attempting to carry an unwanted fetus to term should be forced via the government to attempt to carry this unwanted fetus to term so we can have more unwanted babies on this planet. This is what we need more of! Hundreds of millions more per year in fact!

[Wootah]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #19]

First - lol.

Second, honestly, there is no moral compulsion to look after anyone. My body, my choice. I am allowed to let biology do its thing. If I want a kid for 4 years and have had enough, let them find their own way.

Let's not pretend morality exists and have abortions at least.

Why do people want the chains of morality still? <- interesting question for a new thread.