What is one moral you have that most people don't agree with?
Example: I believe that IP is a direct contradiction of nature, sacrificing the advancement of humanity and the world for selfish gain, and therefore is sinful.
Edit: pls do not downvote the comments this is a constructive discussion
Edit2: IP= intellectal property
Edit3: sort by controversal
I don't know if it's a moral per se, but I think nobody should be able to decline being an organ donor. It is an absolute and unforgivable waste to let bodies rot/burn when they could save someone. There is no reason, no good reason, to not be an organ donor. There is no good reason to be able, even after you're dead, to just let people needlessly die.
And religious reasons are even more moronic. What God, if you truly believe he's good and righteous and loving, would want you to let someone else die if you could save them? Why is your meat sack more important than somebody's life? Don't most people believe the soul leaves the body? It's just meat.
I've had countless arguments about this, but nobody has ever been able to give me a compelling reason as to why letting someone die to protect a corpse is right or just.
in India, there is a religious group that believes/ed bodies should be donated to the sky. they laid out the bodies for the vultures to take them. The entire body would be picked clean in less than a day, going directly back to nature. Sadly most of the vultures are gone now, due to pharmaceuticals. Strangely vultures can consume cyanide and other crazy poisons, but not certain pharmaceuticals that help humans.
Have to admit I know basically nothing about vultures. Can't say I'm surprised that another (sub?)species goes extinct due to humans. We seem to be very good at that.
The only counterargument to it I can imagine is that in shit-backwards healthcare systems like US one, it will disincentivize bad doctors from saving your life. If you're poor and your family can't afford good lawyer, they don't have a good reason to give 100% to save your life, when they can give it 80%, and then sell your organs for good profit.
It's not an argument against compulsive organ donation, more of a one against shit healthcare systems, but still.
Obviously I am not for the sale of organs. And in a system where everyone is a donor, waiting list will probably be much shorter giving people less incentive to try and acquire organs in unethical ways.
But you're right of course, the system has to be robust and fair to not cause issues with it, though of course this is true for any system, not just organ donations.
I mean, that's the biggest counter-argument I've always seen against it. Similar to being against capital punishment: sure, you could perfectly execute (pun slightly intended) it if it was a perfect system devoid of bias and personal interest but, in the face of that lack of reality, giving that much power to the State is inadvisable on reality-based principle.
A family member of mine used to take organs from Cytek, possible misspelling, to DFW airport for transport out of the country. It's already a lucrative business.
My only caveat is that I'm not an organ donor, but my wife and family know that they can authorize organ donation on my behalf if it comes to that. I just want someone who knows me personally to make the decision, not just a hospital board who is playing a numbers game. Maybe a bit more selfish, I just want someone in my court who will pause to think about it.
Hmm, can you actually choose who the organs go to? In my country at least I don't think that's allowed. You're either a donor or you're not, but it's doctors/hospital/board/however it's called, who decide where the organs go, based on need, probability of success, etc. But I suppose that's different in every country.
No you can't, and I don't want to choose where, but if a doctor thinks it's time, I simply want to make sure that they go and talk to my spouse or family member first, before automatically doing something.
Why? But why are you not an organ donnor and why would your wishes even matter? You will be death. Your organs can either decompose in the dirt, or help save a life and reduce suffering. Why do you want "someone in your court" to decide?
It is, indeed, very selfish of you. Why?
If I'm not dead though, if I'm in a hospital with a 50/50 shot, or in a coma, or in any number of ways where I'm still alive. Not saying I don't trust doctors, but I want that decision to be my spouse's, even if I'm on an operating table. They know my wishes, and they will say yes only if they're satisfied there's nothing else to be done.
Your view of god seems to be very much influenced by the Abrahamic religions.
You may not agree that it's important for the deceased or their relatives to keep the body intact until it's buried.
But there's a point to be made that this simply isn't your, or the state's, or anyone else's decision.
That only the deceased and their relatives have the right to decide that, no matter what their reasons are.
Ultimately, you're proposing that as soon as the brain stops functioning, the body of the person immediately becomes state property.
And that's a hard point to make, since everything else they leave behind usually doesn't, and all of our traditions surrounding death go against it.
Trust me, you're not the only one who has said these things. I am fully aware most people disagree with me, haha. I've had some explosive arguments in real life about this, because ultimately it's a very.. emotional subject for people.
Just to respond to your points. I think "tradition" is never a good argument. Slavery used to be a 'tradition', stoning people used to be (and still is in some places) a tradition, circumcision is a tradition. None of these are good just by virtue of being a tradition. Traditions can and should change, especially when they're based on ignorance or hatred or actively harming people.
I am not religious and my example about the soul was really just an example. I know plenty of self-proclaimed christians who use their religion as a reason not to be a donor, and I just don't understand it.
Why should the relatives of the deceased have the final say on it? Is the corpse their property? If it were, they could choose to take it home and let it rot in the basement. Or cut it into pieces and feed it to dogs. Or use it for target practice, stuff it like a piñata. I wouldn't be surprised if there are places in the world where people are allowed to do that, but where I live it's not allowed. So if the corpse is not their property, then whose is it? Not the deceased, because they're dead, they don't own anything anymore. Not the relatives. Then who? If nobody is the owner of the corpse, then why shouldn't the state use the parts that can help people?
Look, I know there is no country in the world that will ever implement what I would want, but at the very least they should all make it opt-out, because this way people who don't care (and wouldn't take the time/effort to register as a donor, even though they wouldn't necessarily mind being one) will automatically be a donor, and the people who are really against it will opt out. Also, if they refuse to make it non-optional, they should make it so that non-donors cannot receive a donor organ themselves, or automatically move down the list when a donor needs one.
Why should the relatives of the deceased have the final say on it? Is the corpse their property?
Yes, it makes the most sense for the corpse to be their property, unless the deceased has specified what to do with it instead.
You know, like it's done with everything else a dead person leaves behind.
If it were, they could choose to take it home and let it rot in the basement. Or cut it into pieces and feed it to dogs. Or use it for target practice, stuff it like a piñata.
No, laws regulate what you can and can't do with your property.
A gun is your property, but you can't shoot it wherever, cause it is dangerous.
If you let a corpse rot in your basement or throw it in the woods, that poses a danger to others or the groundwater, so you can't do that.
But the body was never anyone's property. It was (part of) the person (and you can't own a person), until they died. It is never counted as property in any legal sense as far as I know, it's indivisible, you can't seperate it from the person while they're alive. It's you, you are it. Until you die. And then it's a meat sack. But it seems to me it's in some kind of legal limbo regarding ownership.
I am not an expert btw, I honestly have no idea if there is any real ownership involved when it comes to corpses. I do know that you're not allowed to do anything with it, aside from.. putting it to rest in your preferred way, as long as it adheres to regulations anyway.
Edit: in any case, ownership or not, basically your choice is to either potentially help save someone's (quality of) life or let the corpse rot/burn. Everyone who chooses the latter is, imo, reprehensible. And it serves no purpose, it's a total waste. Hence my wish for it to become non-optional.
And then it’s a meat sack.
A meat sack is a thing.
And in our system, for every single thing which exists, there is someone who ultimately decides what to do with it. An owner.
This is the question: Who owns this thing?
So we've established it's a thing. I don't mind agreeing to that. That doesn't change my opinion about organ donation, however.
I'm pretty sure the body IS property of the person who has it, at least once they're old enough to make medical decisions. That's why you can donate it to science in your living will. In the 'relatives should be able to do what they want with it' case, cutting it up would damage its integrity, and if the will doesn't specify who owns what then it could be a dispute that requires arbitration, much like when people have to agree to sell a house together in an estate, and then you'd need to i guess freeze it or something while they legally hash that out. Of course religious-born laws on mutilation of bodies means that you can't actually put that in your will, even tho if you go the science option the government will totally do that. It's hypocritical, I agree.
That sounds so weird to me. What if you have 4 siblings.. they all own a quarter of you? But they're not actually allowed to chop you in 4 pieces? What about stuffing. I get letting a body rot is a health hazard, but animals get stuffed all the time for people to display. And since humans are animals, and if the bodies can be owned.. then that should be legal, right? As far as I know it's not.
And even if.. technically I own my own body.. I can't sell it, I can't kill it (well I can, but suicide is still illegal as far as I know, not that most people care because when you're succesful, it doesn't matter if it's a crime), I can't chop it up and sell the pieces, or give it away. Hell, many people aren't even allowed to get the medical care they need, because a bunch of strangers are deciding what's best for you (abortion, trans healthcare). So if a bunch of strangers can decide what you can't do with your body while you're alive, then certainly they should be able to decide what to do with your corpse.
I'd posit that 'ownership' means very little when you can't do anything with your so-called 'property.'
Now I also wonder which laws take precedent. If someone... chops up the body of your loved one, which you 'own,' is it corpse desecration or destruction of property?
While I sort of understand your point our society already contradicts that. If a person were to die under suspicious circumstances, an autopsy would be performed regardless of the dead or any relative's wishes, and that would violate the integrity of the body as much as an organ donation would. Therefore we as a society understand that there are limits to one's personal beliefs.
I also disagree with the person you're replying to, I think the system should be opt out with the following conditions:
Your perspective is entirely based on Western views of autonomy and social utility. Diminishing other cultural perspectives on the sanctity of the human body doesn't make you enlightened, you're legit just ignorant.
Sure, that's fine. To each their own. Not the first time I've heard that prioritizing the living over the dead is ignorant.
I don't see a need to be passive aggressive just because a stranger doesn't agree with you. More the point: it's only ignorant if you think you we live in a vacuum
No, it's actually the truth. You can't imagine how many people share the sentiment that corpses > living people. I wasn't being disingenuous, I've heard it so many times.
It's a free world, you believe what you believe.
Edit: not sure what you mean with living in a vacuum? What I believe is that it's a binary choice. You either choose to potentially help someone by being a donor or you don't.
You should post the perspective you actually agree with so people can discuss its merits here.
My perspective is that forcing people to become organ donors feeds into a narrative that humans as physical entities are only significant in terms of the value they create (in this case, value manifests as the possible transplantable organs). This is a fundamentally Western perspective, informed by economic theories that promote the valuation of all tangible assets without considering exogenous variables that could adversely effect "value", or otherwise writing them off as costs.
I'm opposed to your perspective because it creates the precedent for Westerners to continue rationalizing the dehumanization of people under the safety umbrella of good capitalist business practices. As I said earlier, I believe your argument lacks validity outside of a Western context.
I am lost at your comment. Seems like a word salad in which you say absolutely nothing of substance.
What does being an organ donor have to do with capitalism, or with the western society? And what does it have to do with "humans as physical entities in terms of the value they create"? What are you talking about?
I’m opposed to your perspective because it creates the precedent for Westerners to continue rationalizing the dehumanization of people under the safety umbrella of good capitalist business practices.
What???
If you can't understand, then you're proving my point.
That's quite the clever tactic. Just throw together a "salad" of an argument — so incoherent and lacking in logic that no one can make sense of it. Then say, "if you can't understand it, you're proving my point." Win? Somehow?
To be fair you haven't even offered anything I can respond to; you're just flailing.