Bioethics Debate
April 7th, 2008
Our good friend Byron over at “The No Kool Aid Zone” has posed an interesting question that addresses a unique moral dilemma of our day. It involves an issue that some would find “repugnant’ and “offensive”, while others would deem it to be reasonable. His question deals with the ethics of harvesting human organs for profit. Here’s the question:
I want to submit that innocent people are dying needlessly in America because we have a hangup over something, labeling it “immoral” without any Scriptural sanction to do so, and that if we’d get past this hangup, everybody would win. Everybody. In a world where people are dying needlessly waiting on transplant organs, whence cometh our “moral” objections to allowing a person to sell an organ?
In addressing this issue we should first specify whether we’re talking about donors who are living or deceased, since either situation presents its own unique concerns. Byron begins with the example of a lady in his church who donated a kidney to her father. So let’s begin the discussion from that angle.
Initially Byron contends that there is no “scriptural sanction” for labeling organ selling “immoral”. I disagree. One of the main reasons people find the idea of selling human body parts so distasteful is that it devalues the human body to nothing more than a commodity, a product to be bought or sold on the open market to the highest bidder. “But it’s my body,” some may argue, “and I can do with it whatever I please.” Just because you own something doesn’t give you the right to transfer power or ownership of it to anyone else in any way that you please. I would contend that once we head down this slippery slope we begin devaluing people as property and infringing upon the sanctity of human life, a very clear principle from scripture (Psalm 139:14, Genesis 1:27).
For the believer however this creates an even greater issue. In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Paul exhorts, “Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” To say that we as believers are free to sell that which does not belong to us is further problematic.
But there is another issue at stake. Who do you think the restrictions on the sale of human organs are meant to protect? Down through history it’s not the rich who have sold themselves into slavery; it’s the poor. And it’s not the rich who sell their organs for profit; it’s the poor. If your argument is that lifting restrictions will create “a surplus of potential life-saving organs”, who do you think will purchase these organs? Compensating people for their organs will only drive up the cost of transplant surgery, limiting it’s availability to those who are rich enough to afford it. Selling organs leads to exploitation of the poor and that too is a moral issue addressed in scripture (Psalm 10:2, Proverbs 14:31).
But what if we’re talking about donors who are deceased? Byron poses another hypothetical situation in which a young person is tragically killed in a car accident.
A poor family is approached about organ donation — but they can’t get any remuneration; they have to agree to the deal out of the goodness of their hearts. But the rich doctor gets richer, etc. No, getting money for the organs wouldn’t bring back their loved one, but it might significantly help out the young widow and help provide for the kids. And yet we prohibit this, currently, for reasons that utterly escape me.
Let me see if I can provide at least one possible reason. Here’s an alternate scenario that you may not have considered. Remember Terri Shiavo? She was the woman who collapsed in her home and suffered brain damage ultimately becoming dependent on a feeding tube for the next fifteen years. Her husband petitioned the courts to have her feeding tube removed after she was diagnosed a vegetable, but her parents opposed this, arguing that she was still conscious. The controversy stretched on for years and included involvement by politicians and advocacy groups, even the state and federal government. After numerous appeals, motions, petitions, and hearings the husband finally won, the feeding tube was removed, and Terri Shiavo starved to death. What’s my point?
By allowing family members to be compensated for their deceased relative’s organs, we are opening up a Pandora’s Box of possible abuses. It’s already difficult enough when physicians must give advice regarding patients on life support who are possible organ donors. Now add the potential of financial gain into the mix and the pressure placed on those charged with these kinds of decisions increases. A greater temptation now exists to withhold medical treatment for profit. In addition to whatever life insurance they may receive, the Michael Schiavo’s of this world are now entitled to even greater compensation. Is that really what we want?
From a purely pragmatic point of view the issue of organ selling may seem on the surface to be a win-win situation. But I would contend that the moral objections are very real and do in deed have scriptural sanction.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Hey, the problem with having the debate here is that I lose home court advantage!
-
You said, “Just because you own something doesn’t give you the right to transfer power or ownership of it to anyone else in any way that you please.” But I would contend that at least that reasoning should also prohibit the voluntary giving away of organs. The only difference, remember, is money.
-
Now, as to the “devaluing” argument, I don’t think it’s without merit, but at the same time, we aren’t making this argument in a vacuum. The current state of affairs is that many people are losing their lives needlessly, because there are not enough organs. My solution would immediately remedy that (more on that below), and it could be argued that human life is being “devalued” by needlessly allowing thousands a year to die when there is an easy solution. Do we more honor the sanctity of life by insisting on “altruistic” motives in organ donation, thereby allowing thousands to die needlessly, or do we more honor the sanctity of life by preserving as many lives as possible by dramatically increasing the supply of needed organs? I think that that is a very fair question.
-
You then quote II Corinthians 6 and say, “To say that we as believers are free to sell that which does not belong to us is further problematic.” Why is it any less problematic to give away what doesn’t belong to us? The effect is exactly the same: I’m down an organ, and a needy person is up one, one that sustains his/her life. By this reasoning (if not by others), you’ve got to condemn my church member’s giving away of her kidney to her dad, because her kidney didn’t “belong” to her!
-
Further, you are at this point making a better case (though I disagree with it) for how Christians ought to view the issue than you are how society ought to deal with it. Granting that we ought to contend for the enactment of just laws, it still strikes me that at the very least, your arguments shouldn’t have the force of civil law, but rather moral suasion (look it up).
-
Your next line of reasoning just makes no sense to me, honestly, in part because you act as though there is no crisis currently. Who will purchase organs? Everybody! The point is that there will be enough to go around if we stop insisting on altruism. Poor people are (theoretically) dying anyway, right? Driving the cost up? C’mon…I’d argue that the cost could conceivably come down, and here’s how: first, the price of organs wouldn’t be that terribly great if there was a surplus of them; that’s the law of supply and demand; the other costs of surgery would dwarf the price paid for an individual organ, likely. Second, is it possible that if there were a greatly increased number of transplants, we’d see economies of scale kick in and the “price/per” would go down? This happens in other arenas; why not here? The point is that having more organs available, enough to meet the demand, helps everybody, rich and poor alike. Talk of the “exploitation of the poor” will fall on the deaf ears of poor people who watch their loved ones die because there are no organs; I can only imagine that every one of those people would love to be so exploited, if it meant the difference between life and death! I’m sure I would!
-
Finally, you said, “By allowing family members to be compensated for their deceased relative’s organs, we are opening up a Pandora’s of possible abuses. It’s already difficult enough when physicians must give advice regarding patients on life support who are possible organ donors. Now add the potential of financial gain into the mix and the pressure placed on those charged with these kinds of decisions increases. A greater temptation now exists to withhold medical treatment for profit. In addition to whatever life insurance they may receive, the Michael Schiavo’s of this world are now entitled to even greater compensation. Is that really what we want?”
-
Ah, the dread “slippery slope” argument. And it is certainly not without a fair measure of validity, a cautionary tale with which I have some sympathies. But here’s my argument: people are dying. Needlessly. I’ve long said that the important thing to do, in such cases where slippery slope was a valid concern, to draw the line in the right place. There are undoubtedly all sorts of issues where the slippery slope could apply, but we cannot worry about every conceivable “what if” and fail to do the right thing. My answer would be to put legal safeguards in place to attempt, as best we can, to address the potential situations. As you know, Don, I was a regular poster supporting Terri’s right to life, and will always believe that Michael Schiavo is a scum-of-the-earth type (sleeping around while trying to look out for Terri’s “best interests”…right!), that her life was taken in a case of state-approved murder. I would support tougher legislation to keep this from happening; I believe that allowing a person to starve to death amounts to murder. But that doesn’t stop my support, not only for the right of individuals to sell their organs, but of strict guidelines to oversee the practice, in order to do the best job we can of mitigating the slippery slope.
-
I honor your attempt to defend your position, but don’t think that it passes muster sufficiently to prove that the issue is a moral/Scriptural one.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Nice picture, by the way…
April 8th, 2008 at 8:07 am
The first thing I thought of when reading this is Revelation 18 where Babylon is destroyed and ther merchants weep and mourn because no one buys their merchandise anymore including the body and souls of men.
I know that is taken out of context, but it makes me wonder where this debate will ultimately take us.
April 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Byron,
I’ve cited some of your remarks followed by my response.
-
BYRON: You said, “Just because you own something doesn’t give you the right to transfer power or ownership of it to anyone else in any way that you please.” But I would contend that at least that reasoning should also prohibit the voluntary giving away of organs. The only difference, remember, is money.
-
RESPONSE: The key phrase here is “in any way that you please”. In John 15:13 Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” Certainly we can all agree that an organ donation could be included as a biblical act of love. However, add in monetary compensation and it is no longer an act of love but an act of personal gain. You say it’s the ONLY difference, but to me that’s a pretty big difference. The real difference is motive.
-
BYRON: Do we more honor the sanctity of life by insisting on “altruistic” motives in organ donation, thereby allowing thousands to die needlessly, or do we more honor the sanctity of life by preserving as many lives as possible by dramatically increasing the supply of needed organs?
-
RESPONSE: Are we saying then that the end justifies the means? This may not sound very intellectual, but it’s never right to do wrong to do right. To say “THIS devalues human life, but it’s okay because THAT does it even more,” is really not much of an argument.
-
BYRON: Further, you are at this point making a better case (though I disagree with it) for how Christians ought to view the issue than you are how society ought to deal with it. Granting that we ought to contend for the enactment of just laws, it still strikes me that at the very least, your arguments shouldn’t have the force of civil law, but rather moral suasion (look it up).
-
RESPONSE: Byron, my friend, I am attempting to address this from the perspective of a Christian world view. Are we saying then that there are certain moral truths that are only appropriate for believers, but are not applicable to nonbelievers? If that’s the case then there aren’t really any moral absolutes are there? My point is that from a purely biblical perspective our bodies are not our own to do with whatever we please. So the here’s the real question. Is God really honored by mutilating our bodies for profit?
-
BYRON: Your next line of reasoning just makes no sense to me, honestly, in part because you act as though there is no crisis currently. Who will purchase organs? Everybody! The point is that there will be enough to go around if we stop insisting on altruism. Poor people are (theoretically) dying anyway, right? Driving the cost up? C’mon…I’d argue that the cost could conceivably come down…
-
RESPONSE: On this we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. I simply do not agree with your conclusions. First, you base your assumption on the notion that suddenly the market will be flooded with enough organs to save the world. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying that for one minute. I believe things will be as it has always been. Only the very most desperate are the ones who will be selling their organs. These organs will not be cheap particularly if there’s any kind of middle man involved, so that the end result will be additional medical costs. Sure more lives may be saved, but it won’t be the lives of poor people as you have surmised.
-
BYRON: Ah, the dread “slippery slope” argument. My answer would be to put legal safeguards in place to attempt, as best we can, to address the potential situations.
-
RESPONSE: You concur then that allowing organ sales creates a greater temptation to withhold medical treatment for profit. So it seems that on at least one point we agree even if we disagree on the solution.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Byron, you say that I haven’t passed muster sufficiently to prove that the issue is a moral/Scriptural one. My friend, I would hope that we would try and view everything in this life from a moral/scriptural perspective. That’s part of having a Christian world view.
April 8th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Ah, now back to our intriguing and challenging little tete a tete.
-
I’m going to take you up on your challenges. First, to the idea that one’s motive effectively changes completely when money is introduced. I beg to differ, although I see your point. We each earn a living by means of the promotion of the gospel. We each could choose to do it for free–as many people do, and as I would myself were I “independently wealthy.” Can we not be motivated by love and receive a paycheck? I’m not saying that most would; I would just suggest that the introduction of a monetary motive would not, as you seem to suggest, preclude love as a motive by definition.
-
But the bigger issue is that we’re talking, remember, about an issue of legality. One’s motives shouldn’t make a lot of difference when it comes to what should be legal or not. It’s legal to make money, regardless of the motive (some means of making money are illegal, but I’m not aware of any illegal motives.
-
No, I’d agree with you wholeheartedly: the end does not justify the means. But that presupposes that the means itself is inherently unjustifiable, and that it only becomes justifiable if it serves a justifiable end. If you can prove to me that the act of selling a kidney is inherently immoral, then no amount of good that is done thereby will cause me to support it. I am unconvinced that this is the case.
-
Further, when we are not talking about moral issues, we can, do, and should consider the “end” sought when considering, not the morality, but the appropriateness of a given action. Hang with me here. There is nothing inherently wrong with driving on the left-hand side of the road, or driving one’s car through an intersection under a light that is red. These things are illegal (and rightly so!) because we have an end in mind: the protection of life and the orderly flow of traffic. We are not bound to drive on a particular side of the road in order to be moral, and we’re not even bound to have traffic laws, but the “ends” mentioned above render those and other laws reasonable. The “ends” of protecting life and having orderly traffic justify the “means” of traffic laws, even if those traffic laws themselves have no particular moral component in and of themselves. So the “situation ethics” argument stands or falls upon the morality of the “means”, and in this case, we’re back to the original question: on what solid, clear grounds are the means immoral?
-
As to the Christian worldview answer, I give ground to no one on the importance of believers developing a Christ-centered worldview. But you’re not talking about a Christian worldview issue; you’re going beyond a Christian worldview to the legal imposition of that worldview upon others. I would argue that there are certain cases, governed by Scripturally-derived principles, when we are right to seek such imposition–but that such cases are relatively rare, and again, governed by certain rules.
-
As Christ-followers, we are called to a higher standard of living in every area. It does not follow that we ought to seek to make every one of those areas legally binding upon non-believers (that’d truly be a theocracy). For instance, a Christian worldview demands that believers refrain from lying, envy, greed, unwholesome talk, lust…you get the picture and the laundry list. It does not follow, though, that we believe every lie told ought to be under sanction of law (”You’ll have to come with us, Mr. Black; when Mrs. Black asked you, ‘does this dress make me look fat’, your answer did not conform to Section 8, Paragraph E, Point 19 of the Virginia Penal Code regarding “speaking the truth in love”.). Again, I’d suggest that there are some (relatively limited) circumstances when a Christian worldview compels us to seek the enactment of legal sanction. This situation does not rise to that standard (which I can enumerate in another post, if you’re interested).
-
We’ll agree to disagree. Agreeably!
-
Yes, we do concur on the final point. I do think that we’d have to craft appropriate legal safeguards. I do fear the slippery slope; that’s a valid concern.
-
To your final point, as I said earlier, I couldn’t agree more. We must view everything from the perspective of Scripture. I am convinced that I am, but as always, I stand open to clear evidence otherwise.
-
Now to a challenge: in the case of organ donation, you are saying that the addition of one element–the introduction of financial remuneration–takes a moral, dare we say “heroic”, act, and turns it into an immoral one. Here’s the question: can you think of any parallel situation, where the introduction of money moves an action from clearly moral to clearly immoral? Off the top of my head, I cannot, though by asking I allow for the possibility. Please, to any reader, don’t say “prostitution” and embarrass yourself, because that’s clearly not the case (and is easily proven). OK, ball’s in your court, readers!
April 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am
In all honesty I’m having difficulty following much of what you have written here. For one thing some of your arguments do not accurately reflect the points I’ve made and are convoluting the issues well beyond my original intent. Rather than try and address each of your responses let me see if I can put this in a nutshell.
-
I maintain that putting a price tag on human body parts serves to devalue people as property and infringes upon the sanctity of human life. Further, selling organs leads to exploitation of the poor since only the most desperate will be the ones selling their organs and only those who are wealthy enough to afford it will be buying them. Obviously you do not agree, but I stand by my original premise that these objections have their basis in scripture.
-
As to your question, “Can you think of any parallel situation, where the introduction of money moves an action from clearly moral to clearly immoral?” As a matter of fact I can. It’s called SLAVERY. I can send my son over to your house to voluntarily help you with your chores. That’s an act of kindness. Or you can purchase him for a sum of money and then he becomes your property. That’s an act of immorality. As far as I’m concerned harvesting body parts for money is no different.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Just thought of another one. BRIBERY.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Don,
I’m not at all trying to convolute the points, just answer them. What do you find hard to follow? Maybe I should have used the “Don” and “Response” format you did, to better distinguish points. Maybe I can “reformat” in order to make my arguments more clear; that’s the magic of “EDIT”. I can do that on my blog; obviously, on yours, I cannot (the downside of “double posting”, I suppose).
-
Your first example, slavery, doesn’t work (although, obviously, slavery is wrong). You can send your son over to work at my house, and he can voluntarily help me with my chores. Or you can send him over, he can help me, and I can pay him. That’s not slavery, and it happens all the time. For slavery to work as an parallel example, the only difference in the situation would be paying or not paying; ex., I forcibly detain a person, make him work for me, and don’t pay him a dime, versus forcible detention with pay.
-
Let me chew on the bribery thing and I’ll get back with you.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Byron,
Somehow I knew you were going to say that. Of course it doesn’t work if you are going to misrepresent my example. That’s not the scenario I posed. But you keep chewing. As for the rest I don’t even know where to begin. I’ve tried as succinctly as I know how to sum up my position for you and rather than confuse the issue any further I think at this point we may just need to agree to disagree.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:04 am
How does that misrepresent your example?
April 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Rest assured that if I misrepresented it, it wasn’t on purpose, but I don’t think that as you stated it, it met my criteria. I’ll happily stand corrected, ‘cause I’m looking for one good example (bribery, by the way, I’ll touch on later, but I don’t think it meets the criteria either, although I’m not sure of that, thus I wait to post).
April 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Don,
I think I just got how you thought I misrepresented, so let me demonstrate a different way I don’t believe your example holds. The parallel would have to be, not between your sending your son over to help, but your permanently assigning me custody for the purpose of having him as my slave (against his will, assumedly), and my purchasing him from you for the same purpose. Either way, your son is my slave; in the first case, no money is exchanged; in the second case it is. Both are immoral; the money exchanged makes no difference (except perhaps a little in degree).
Got to draw precise parallels in order to satisfy the terms on the question.
More on bribery still to come.
April 9th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Byron,
Again, I’m not surprised, but here’s two more examples for you to chew on.
-
My wife works in a ladies clothing store at the mall. As an employee of that store she is permitted to buy merchandise from that store as gifts for friends and family. The moment she receives so much as a dime in compensation from one of her intended benefactors, however, that’s grounds for dismissal. Why? Because it’s unethical.
-
Or how about this. We’ve all seen people who go out in their four-wheel drives on snowy days to pull people from the ditch. If they do it out of the goodness of their hearts we call them a good Samaritan. But if they charge you $50 for their trouble we would say that they are capitalizing on the misfortunes of others.
-
I’m sure neither of these examples will pass muster either, since the intent of the hypothetical is to have no precise parallel, but try to be open minded.
April 9th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Don,
I’m not sure what you’re “not surprised” at; you’ll have to explain, because I did demonstrate that I’m looking (honestly) for a true apples-to-apples situation (which yours clearly wasn’t, you’d agree, I assume, or am I missing something yet?). And what do you mean, “the intent of the hypothetical is to have no precise parallel?” The intent of the hypothetical is to honestly ask if there is a truly parallel situation where the exchange of money–as the only factor–changes an otherwise ethical act into an immoral one. I’m really open to considering that possibility, so if it’s cynicism I read into your words, I assure you that it is unwarranted, and I’m not sure why you’d even go there. I’ll get to your next hypotheticals after I mull them a bit, but do reconsider the cynicism, if that’s indeed what I’m reading, since I’m honestly trying to sort this through in an open and honest manner, and have a respectful dialogue with anybody/everybody about an admittedly touchy subject.
-
And anybody else wants to jump in, have at it!
-
Oh, and by the way, why does your blog not recognize a space between paragraphs? Mine does; same guy does our blogs, I guess using same platform. I see that above you put dashes between paragraphs; shouldn’t have to do that. See if Webbiedude Paul can help you out!
April 9th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Cynicism? Me?
-
Seriously, Byron, what is truly parallel about anything? Your getting so caught up in semantics that you’re completely missing the point. If you’ll recall, the point I originally made was that by adding monetary compensation to an act of love or kindness you change it into an act of personal gain. That seems to me to be pretty self-evident and I think I’ve provided four pretty straightforward examples that are considered also to be immoral. Obviously you disagree with my premise. I understand. So it doesn’t surprise me that you’ve dismissed them as not being applicable. I’m not trying to be cynical, (even though my lips are moving) I’m just being realistic.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
By the way, congratulations, both of your alter egos have moved into the lead as Top Commenters. You get a Crackle Bar.
-
Not sure about the paragraph thing. For now the dash will have to do.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Au contraire, mi amigo! I don’t think that parallels are that hard to draw at all. I took your attempted parallel and drew two different ones from it, each valid but neither proving your point. I haven’t yet discounted any of the other three that you drew.
-
I do recall the point you made about adding monetary compensation; I also recall that you had nothing to say to my rejoinder regarding ministry, the fact that you and I both are paid to do it, and the fact that I don’t consider that fact to change ministry into an act of personal gain as opposed to love. What think ye in that regard?
-
You have provided three examples that you consider to prove something immoral, because that first one is clearly no parallel to the circumstance at hand. As I said, I’ll consider the other three soon.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
testing comments
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Lorem your own ipsum, there, sir. I’ll thank you to unhand mine…
April 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
At first blush, I’m more taken with your wife’s mall store parallel than I am the others, so let me ask, just to clarify: she buys the stuff at a reduced rate, correct? And that’s kosher with the store? Would the store allow her to resell at no profit (i.e., I give her the $ in advance, say, and she buys it for me)? Might make a difference in the parallel. Still thinking.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
No on all counts. She can’t receive a dime. Profit or no profit it’s still the same.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Let’s
hear
it
for
Paul
April 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
To your rejoinder regarding ministry, “the fact that you and I both are paid to do it, and the fact that I don’t consider that fact to change ministry into an act of personal gain as opposed to love. What think ye in that regard?”
Actually, I didn’t respond to it initially because I didn’t think it was germane. Making a buck and earning a living are two entirely different things. The biblical responsibility of the church to care for the physical wellbeing of its ministers can hardly be compared to the exploitation of society’s most desperate. I just didn’t think it applied.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
The only point I intended to make in asking the question is that you seemed to suggest that receiving payment for doing something rendered it impossible to be motivated by love. What motivates you as you minister? I know, and so do you: love! And yet you receive a paycheck for doing it. Both are true: you minister out of love, and you receive remuneration for it. Getting paid doesn’t ruin the motive; that’s my only point in raising that issue.
But it’s really a side point, so I’ll leave that one. On to your parallels in the next post.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
You’re not going to like what I do to your parallels, but they did cause me to think awhile, and in fact, I’m still formulating my response to “bribery”, but as to the others:
What Kim would be doing, were she to purchase something and resell it, profit or no, is not immoral in and of itself, because people do that all the time. What makes it wrong in her case is the fact that she thereby violates store policy; that’s the transgression. Here’s the parallel: she purchases an item from a store for which she does not work, and then gives it away. Great! She purchases an item from a store for which she does not work, and then charges for it. Great! It’s only her status as an employee that changes that, not the fact that money is charged.
Now, to the guy pulling us out of the ditch: that parallel doesn’t work either, because it’s not immoral or wrong for him to charge us, but rather something society has deemed “uncouth” or what-have-you. Here’s my point: people capitalize financially on the misfortunes of others all the time, and we think nothing of it. The hospital makes money when we are sick. The mechanic makes money when my brakes give out. We could name a thousand services that make money off the fact that we have needs, sometimes misfortunes, etc.
Fast-forward to the Good Samaritan: societally, we’ve come to expect that neighbors do those kinds of things when we’re stuck in ditches; I’m glad I live in that kind of society. When someone charges, we think he’s uncouth or rude or what have you, but really, he’s just doing what the mechanic does: making money off our misfortune. I’m not taking up for the clod, because most of us help our neighbors for free, but the clod is providing a very needed service, and while I’d think him a jerk, he’s not doing anything wrong, per se; he’s just engaging in a business transaction. Rude? Yep. Immoral because he charges? No.
Bribery next! But let me reiterate something as together we chase a modest rabbit trail: the lack of a fitting parallel doesn’t mean I’m right; it’s just an interesting challenge that it’s difficult to find a true parallel to this case, and makes me wonder why we single it out here. After all, people do get paid for donating plasma, and hair for wigs. Granted, an organ from a living person is a bigger deal, but people can easily live with one kidney, so is the wrongness of this act because it’s on a larger scale than plasma?
I again maintain that I understand there are issues that are very valid concerns; I just think that this is a discussion worth having in a world where people are dying needlessly.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Wikipedia defines “bribery” this way:
Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person or in breach of law. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in discharge of a public or legal duty.
Of course, bribery is wrong, but I don’t think it’s a parallel either, because if a person alters his behaviour (dig the Brit spelling!) in ways not consistent with his duties or in breach of the law, that’s wrong, whether he receives payment for it or not. The money offered in such a bribe is, certainly, the agent of change, but perverting justice is always wrong, not something that changes from right to wrong by virtue of the introduction of money.
Those are good challenges, Don, but I’m still wondering if there’s a true parallel where a given action changes from right to wrong solely because money changes hands.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
As you said, Byron, this is a rabbit trail. Again, I never suggested that a given action changes from right to wrong solely because money changes hands.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
OK, I misunderstood. It might be interesting to find an example, though. Any other readers?
By the way, I think we’ve invented something: “simulblogging”.