IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags lesser of two evils , morality

Reply
Old Today, 07:28 AM   #41
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,518
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
In terms of ethics, I think organ donation should be opt-out rather than opt-in
Can you explain what you mean by this? Who would be opting out? What would they be opting out of?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:30 AM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,518
Originally Posted by suren View Post
Actually the point of such "trolley problem" type dilemmas is to force us to imagine in situations where no alternative options are available.
Unfortunately it's in human nature to "Kobayashi Maru" their way out of contrived dilemmas. You end up either presenting a dilemma with (unstated) alternatives, or a dilemma that's so absurdly contrived that nobody takes it seriously anyway.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:35 AM   #43
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,862
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Can you explain what you mean by this? Who would be opting out? What would they be opting out of?
Yes, at the moment you become an organ donor by signing a form or card and checking boxes saying which organs you are happy to have used after your death. That is opt-in.

With opt-out, you are assumed to be an organ donor unless you have signed forms and carry a card saying "DON'T USE MY ORGANS!" Presumably the next-of-kin will also know of your wishes.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:42 AM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,518
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Yes, at the moment you become an organ donor by signing a form or card and checking boxes saying which organs you are happy to have used after your death. That is opt-in.

With opt-out, you are assumed to be an organ donor unless you have signed forms and carry a card saying "DON'T USE MY ORGANS!" Presumably the next-of-kin will also know of your wishes.
Gotcha, thanks.

That seems unethical to me. It violates basic principles of bodily autonomy. With opt-in, my body and all its parts are mine. I and I alone decide what to do with them and how to dispose of them.

With opt-out, my body essentially belongs to the state by default. The state decides what to do with it, and I have to take extra steps to claim what should rightfully be mine by default.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:42 AM   #45
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,862
Originally Posted by suren View Post
Yeah waiting for someone to die is also an option, although some might argue that after the first patient death it might be too late to rescue most if not all of the patients.

Actually the point of such "trolley problem" type dilemmas is to force us to imagine in situations where no alternative options are available.

The current one that I brought is about choosing between a huge number of victims or a few number of unfairly (randomly) chosen victims.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Unfortunately it's in human nature to "Kobayashi Maru" their way out of contrived dilemmas. You end up either presenting a dilemma with (unstated) alternatives, or a dilemma that's so absurdly contrived that nobody takes it seriously anyway.
I get the point of the ethical dilemma, which is why I tried to close up the loop-holes for the OP in my second post.

All I am pointing out was that in the first place the thought experiment doesn't present an ethical dilemma as raised. In the second, I was saying, it could be better phrased that way (steel-manning and also answering other objections raised).

Now, usually, the thought experiment is asked with the assumption that one perfectly healthy person walks into a hospital with remarkably suitable organs for five dying patients with, perhaps, unsuitable organs for donation (due to illness).

Then it becomes a difficult ethical decision, because only then are we sacrificing someone for others.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:50 AM   #46
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 28,862
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Gotcha, thanks.

That seems unethical to me. It violates basic principles of bodily autonomy. With opt-in, my body and all its parts are mine. I and I alone decide what to do with them and how to dispose of them.

With opt-out, my body essentially belongs to the state by default. The state decides what to do with it, and I have to take extra steps to claim what should rightfully be mine by default.
True, but after death is body autonomy really an issue? To some extent body autonomy cannot be considered absolute given that if I break some kind of rules on a social contract that I never knew I even signed, they can fling me in jail.

I would say that society is far more likely to benefit from something that will no longer be of any use to me once I am dead:

From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Opt-out legislative systems dramatically increase effective rates of consent for donation as a consequence of the default effect.[27] For example, Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%.
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.