I loved the topic for today's senior TOK presentation, and want to see what everyone thinks of it. The main question is: Is it okay to pay organ donors?
The arguments were mainly based on the morality of the situation. The question then becomes, Is monetary motivation for organ donation immoral? Can we even define this as an absolute moral value? If so, does that mean it should not be done?
This was one of the questions I wrote on the back of my card:
If a man with complete kidney failure needs a donor to live, should we let him die just because the donor would be giving according to monetary motivation as opposed to compassion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ali, in response to your question- I believe that the man should not be left to die solely based on the nature of the kidney donor's attitude. If the dying man wanted to survive and had expressed his wishes that his life be extended with the help of a kidney, then that decision should not be taken away from him. If there is a donor who is willing to give a kidney in exchange for money, and if the dying man is willing to take that kidney, then society/laws should not forbid this trade.
Although this is merely my opinion of the matter, I simplify the question for myself in this manner so that it becomes more straightforward:
A has x and wants y.
B has y and wants x.
A is willing to give x for y.
B is willing to give y for x.
With this scientific method approach to the knowledge issue, all the emotion and moral questions can be ignored (at least for the moment) in a simplified approach to the subject.
Given the four above statements, it is logical to manipulate the given facts in order to say:
A can give x to B, B can give y to A.
You are right that we can ignore the emotional and moral questions with this formula, but should we? Put in different values for x and y.
A has a creative, meaningful life and wants to the feeling of being loved.
B has the ability to make someone feel loved and wants to murder for pleasure.
A and B enter a relationship in which A gains the feeling of being loved and B eventually murders A.
Well, when adding such "diverse" or "drastic" values for x and y, then the equations above should be met with more care and caution.
In class, for example, Mr. Perkins brought up these equations and described them (though I paraphrase) as "the most boiled-down explanation you can get".
I just want to clarify-when using the above formulas with values for x and y that pass beyond simple items (such as pencil, book, ruler, a dollar...)other equations should be added, such as:
H(x) = x is an illegal/impossible action
H(y) = y is an illegal/impossible action
Then:
if H -> ~x
if H -> ~y
using the math symbol [~] as a placement for "not possible", or in Mr. Perkins's lovely example, "not legal".
Using my boiled down explanation of it requires the addition of other equations when factoring in such variables such as morality, lawfulness, physical possibility (scalping, anyone?), etc.
I don't think you can reduce everything down to simple mathematical equations. While doing so may theoretically yield a desired result, an equation neglects a number of variables often present in such situations, such as human emotions, unforseen consequences of A getting x or y, a psychopathic sadist, etc. By reducing such complex issues down to mere mathematical formulae, you are trying to objectify an issue that is subjective at heart.
Will-you brought that up in class, and I really like how you phrase it, the problem being that I'm trying to "objectify an issue that is subjective".
I do agree with that statement and I realize that the problems with the mathematical approach arise when dealing with less straightforward topics and issues revolving around morals, emotions, opinions, biases, etc.
While acknowledging these issues, I realize that I'm a mathematical person who likes things to be straightforward, which is why I suggested the x and y approach to the matter. It makes more sense to me.
I'm not condemning your methods; the mathematical model is, in my opinion, a great starting point, even for abstract/subjective issues. As mathematics is such a concrete field, along with most of the hard sciences, it naturally has trouble dealing with abstract problems, such as those involving human emotions and morality. It's important to keep this limitation in mind when using math or science as a way of knowing.
I just want to say that scalping is gross. Don't do it.
Post a Comment