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.
I would shred my body out of spite before passing. I paid exorbitant living expenses my whole life just to exist and now that I’m dead you want more of me?
Get fucked!
You know what? I understand the feeling. But then I realize that the poor guy waiting for a kidney is really not to blame for how fucked up society is.
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.
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?
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.