Altruist Organ Transplantaion Laws: The War Against Earning and Trade

[RandolphLevin]

I like McKeever's argument that the system is immoral, but I'm not convinced that it is immoral to contribute to the system at all. If I don't contribute to this organ system, parties who would otherwise be willing to buy my organs (ie moral people) will die. I think the best option is trying to end the current system even while we use it (or risk black market deals).

[richardcadbury]

13:53

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from selling their organs"

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from selling their labour"

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from selling their house"

"I find it grotesque, when people talk about being able to BENEFIT from donating their property"

These are all exact equivalents. (1-3 are examples of 4, the general principle)

[richardcadbury]

Whoa! That doctor Tom used about twice as many words as he needed to.

And yes, doctor, we know what rejection is, we're not that ignorant.

[PlaceOfOrigin]

You cant have a little bit of poisen (regulations). You either have freedom (capitalism) or you dont (every other type of ecomomy)

[ViraIVideos]

Everyone here is acting like entering the market is the panacea of our problems.

In reality it's opening a can of worms and breaking open a pandora's box of issues.

Rather than delve in those issues, the govt. simply banned the profiting of organs all together, so people could not be abused through the market.

Market abuse is common in all industries, why wouldn't it be common in the organ trade?

[LuminaryAluminum]

Good plan, punish everybody (incl. waiting recipients) for the potential(!) misdeeds of a few bad apples.

Maybe we should do that consistently and make everything illegal. How about that?

[ViraIVideos]

You're right, lets not lock our doors, because we're punish the majority of the people for the actions of a few.

Lets not buy guns or lock our cars either.

You know what, why do we even have security?

It's the actions of the few that DEFINE a society.

Do you live in the real world, or does a majority need to do something, before you act?

Wake up to reality already.

[LuminaryAluminum]

Sorry, but your argument makes no sense. Sticking to your analogy, a ban on free organ trade would be like dealing with a few burglars by making it illegal for everyone to not lock their door.

Thanks for playing, though.

[rambo26]

The free market is the only solution to our problems, only it leaves each individual free to act on his own judgement. The fact that some might act irrationally is no reason to violate the rights of everyone by limiting organ trade.

[ViraIVideos]

Do you know what regulations are?

Restrictions on the free market.

The lack of those restrictions caused our economic recession that we're in.

And after all that you say the free market is the answer?

Wow... talk about the ignorance.

[rambo26]

Yes and I am against them.

A free market would have had vastly different results than this mixed economy with; the inflationary Fed, manipulative tax policy, deposit insurance, the CRA, Freddie&Fannie, government sanctioned rating agencies (AAA!?), bail outs, slow foreclosure laws and regulations! (eg Sarbanes/Oxley)

We deserve a sharp recession with all these altruist policies that encourage irrationality.

[ViraIVideos]

lol, every economy is a mixed economy (better known as a slightly socialist leaning economy)

That's because pure capitalism can't work.

Even the most capitalistic country, which in this case would be hong kong, has socialist tendencies.

Because of those tendencies we call them mixed economies.

You're all theory, and no reality.

Go create your own world where pure capitalism works, because in this one, we all know it doesn't.

[ViraIVideos]

The fact of the matter is, people get abused when given a choice to enter the market.

People will be selling organs, for very low amounts, because people are desperate or don't know their true value.

That's why selling organs is illegal, so people can't profit off of that, and people can't be abuse.

That's why that choice is illegal, to stop the abuse the would occur.

[ViraIVideos]

Why are you so materialistic paul?

What cash comes with you after you hit the grave?

Kings before us with kingdom's unimaginable ruled, where do they stand now?

Why are you so obsessed with money paul?

[LuminaryAluminum]

Of course I can't take any money with me into the grave. My family, however, could sure use a couple of thousand dollars when I'm gone. For example to cover the cost of the funeral or to compensate for my lost income for a while.

[madamsponge]

Paul, I really think you blew this argument, you said that even if I, using my own free will and judgement want to donate my organs freely without coercion by the terms the govt set, I would be committing an immoral act. I really don't think that many objectivists would agree with you. And you actually are advocating "us" as a collective to not donate (even if I wanted to) in order to change the law. *cont'd*

[madamsponge]

* cont'd* But once the law is changed then the aforementioned donation would magically be changed from an immoral act to a moral act? I'm sure you can see the fallacy 5:12- 7:00

[LuminaryAluminum]

There is no contradiction here. If you don't have a choice, morality is completely off the table.

Suppose you are very generous and would give your car away free of charge to anyone who wants it. Then you leave your house in the morning to find that it was stolen.

This would not have been an act of generosity on your part. You may not mind that the car is gone, but you had no choice. It's only generosity if you have the option of NOT giving it away. The same goes for morality.

[richardcadbury]

Try thinking of this in terms of cars.

Imagine a law that says that when you die your car must be either given to someone else (as determined by a commitee of mechanics in which you may have no say), or it must be destroyed.

Your car may not be bequeathed to anyone in particular or ever sold.

What is the difference between an organ and a car?

Can anyone think of a real difference?

[RebelRadius]

Selfishness is indeed a virtue & completely opposite of the sacrificial Christ.

Morality, is completely lacking within religion and the most classic example is that Christ valued his life less than that of a sinner.

I enjoy your video's Paul. Thank you.

[sk8erboi4jc]

here in america, that ad would be no issue at all. canada must be really conservitive and clean cut

[PaulMcKeever]

To choose the latter is to sacrifice your values. Your heart, liver, kidneys etc. may be worth thousands of dollars to your wife and children, or others who you value and who survive you. If you donate your organs instead of sell them, you are giving values to a person you do not value nearly as much as your loved ones: you are sanctioning the injustice of the prohibition against organ sales.

[PaulMcKeever]

Ah well, you see, that's just the point. An Objectivist probably would not think "greedy". The "greedy" response (together with the "he doesn't care about dying people" response, etc.) is the logical result of an altruist ethics. If I were to try to show the benefits to others, merely to try to avoid offending the altruists, my actual point would have been lost. There's no point in wrapping up rational egoism in non-essentials that are consistent with altruism...not if (cont'd)

[PaulMcKeever]

(cont'd)...not if your goal is to champion reality, reason, and rational egoism. And one MUST champion reality, reason, and rational egoism IF one's ultimate goal is a free society. It is the ONLY way to a free society; to a capitalist social system.

I wasn't there to make friends with altruists. I was there to make altruists think "Why does he find this so evil? Why does he think the left is obsessed with death?". Some of them will try to find out....just as many tried to (cont'd)..

[PaulMcKeever]

...(cont'd) ...just as many were motivated to discovery why this Ayn Rand person was going around saying that Selfishness is a Virtue.

[GamblerJustice]

Well said, Paul! Thanks for another good video.

[lidicus]

I agree with John on most of this, except the social utility argument, first, because it's not really the main issue, and you don't want to give the impression that you are only for control of one's body by that individual for utilitarian reasons, and second, because demonstrating practicality is often a lot more difficult and time consuming than making a moral argument.