This situation kinda reminds me of John Locke talking about slavery. He says that for some rights to be truly inalienable, that people themselves should not have the ability to willingly surrender them, such as by willingly selling themselves into slavery. Now, yes, John Locke owned stock in a slave trading company, so he’s a hypocrite in that regard, but I digress. I feel like this is one of those things where people shouldn’t be allowed to physically sell parts of their body for consumption, as “not being eaten by other people” is one of those inalienable rights we should have as a society.
but to a degree I agree. in that chef example, at any point the chef could revoke consent and stop at any time. Likewise, somebody shouldn’t be able to sell themselves into slavery but it would be fine to agree to do work for free or under slavery conditions as long as you can revoke consent at any time. But the right should be inalienable such that nobody should be in a position where they could be coerced into doing that, it would have to be 100% voluntary and enthusiastic. Like if somebody was in a position where it was either agree to being a slave or be homeless or starve or otherwise suffer, then I would argue society has failed them, we didn’t protect their rights adequately
Right, but there’s no more harm that could come to you after you’re dead, so being an organ donor wouldn’t really qualify in this context. Your organs being donated after death diminishes you in no way and also potentially enriches the lives of others.
This situation kinda reminds me of John Locke talking about slavery. He says that for some rights to be truly inalienable, that people themselves should not have the ability to willingly surrender them, such as by willingly selling themselves into slavery. Now, yes, John Locke owned stock in a slave trading company, so he’s a hypocrite in that regard, but I digress. I feel like this is one of those things where people shouldn’t be allowed to physically sell parts of their body for consumption, as “not being eaten by other people” is one of those inalienable rights we should have as a society.
Jokes on john locke, i’m an organ donor anyways 😎
but to a degree I agree. in that chef example, at any point the chef could revoke consent and stop at any time. Likewise, somebody shouldn’t be able to sell themselves into slavery but it would be fine to agree to do work for free or under slavery conditions as long as you can revoke consent at any time. But the right should be inalienable such that nobody should be in a position where they could be coerced into doing that, it would have to be 100% voluntary and enthusiastic. Like if somebody was in a position where it was either agree to being a slave or be homeless or starve or otherwise suffer, then I would argue society has failed them, we didn’t protect their rights adequately
Right, but there’s no more harm that could come to you after you’re dead, so being an organ donor wouldn’t really qualify in this context. Your organs being donated after death diminishes you in no way and also potentially enriches the lives of others.
You don’t have to be dead to donate organs. And donating something like a kidney does impact your health.
Sure, but also on a very basic level organ donating is not the same thing as selling yourself into a lifetime of inescapable slavery.
For sure, but i’d argue it’s maybe comparable to the chef example.
deleted by creator