JBJ wrote:Happiness is not just a function of survival. Food, shelter, and clothing does not make people happy if they are forced to have their relatives organs taken against their will. Or the knowledge that their final wishes will not be honored. Your comparison is equally flawed.
And yet people will be equally unhappy if their loved ones are dying from lack of available organ transfer. Who's happiness matters more? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that having your wife die is going to make you more unhappy than having your already dead wife's body reduced in mass by a few pounds. If you're going to argue that organ harvesting is wrong because it makes people unhappy I think you need to consider how unhappy people and their families who don't get organ transplants are going to be.
Ouiser wrote:I think we'd also be in trouble if our laws were based entirely on logic. We can't discuss this issue in an vacuum devoid of emotional considerations and expect to come up with anything workable. It would be rejected out of hand the first time a religious person was told they were ignorant for not supporting the idea as has happened a couple times in this thread.
If we remove all emotion, it basically comes down to those who believe in individual sovereignty and those who believe in a more communal structure (I'm struggling for a good term here). I happen to believe the former, so it's up to me to decide what happens to my body after I die and hopefully my family will respect that (which I think they would). The other side seems to be arguing for the greater good. I think there are ways to convince the sovereign individual to participate in the greater good, but that it's immoral to force it on them.
Charity that is required is no longer charity, it's a tax (or theft by rule of law).
Well firstly I have to disagree that we'd be in trouble if laws were based on entirely logically sound principles but that's neither here nor there.
My problem with considering emotion here is that it's entirely too small a scope. Essentially the arguement is that organ harvesting is wrong because it upsets the emotions of the family of the deceased. But on the other hand you have the emotions of the family of the dying. Now you are in the position of the arbiter who decides whether the organs stay in the corpse or are removed and go in the dying person. Either way, someone's emotions will be upset. It seems to me that when your options are [upset some peole and save a life] or [upset some people and let a person die] that the choice should be clear.