selling organs

Question 1

consequentialism

Answer 1

• permissible as long as donor was compensated appropriately, benefitted recipient
• consider the consequences:
  1. increased organ availability
  2. reduction of organ trafficking
  3. worry about exploitation and financial incentives
  4. concerns about dignity
  5. concern about inequities (rich benefiiting)
• permissibility depends on whether you think the benefits outweigh the harms in a specific situation, multifaceted issue

Question 2

virtue ethics

Answer 2

• consideration of several virtues come into play
  1. compassion/beneficence: if organ sales alleviate suffering it could be seen as virtuous. does the compensation remain inline with virtuous act?
  2. justice/fairness: how is the market being set up? will it disproportionately benefit the wealthy and exploit the vulnerable?
  3. integrity/honesty: process of informed consent?
• aristotle’s view of selling organs would see it as a violation of the virtue of self care. would be physically detrimental to one’s own well-being.

Question 3

formula of humanity

Answer 3

• not permissible
  1. treating as ends: selling organs could be viewed as treating someone as merely a means to an end, potentially undermining the person’s inherent value
  2. exploitation/autonomy: if individuals are compelled to sell their organs due to financial desperation, could be seen as a violation of their autonomy and exploitation of their vulnerable situation
  3. dignity: could be seen as violation of the inherent dignity of human beings

Question 4

formula of universal law

Answer 4

• if we were to universalize selling organs, it may lead to a world where individuals are viewed primarily as commodities, potentially undermining the very concept of humanity
• not consistently permissible