Putting organs on the market might make certain ethical dilemmas about economic inequality more obvious to the casual bystander, but the same sort of ethical quandaries are already structurally woven into the global economic system.
Putting organs on the market might make certain ethical dilemmas about economic inequality more obvious to the casual bystander, but the same sort of ethical quandaries are already structurally woven into the global economic system.
It's not different at all. We're not different from the Aztecs: our economy has become an elaborate system of human sacrifice to false gods.
This sounds little different than the failed Marxist strategy of 'sharpening the contradictions of capitalism' in hopes of awakening class consciousness among the proletariat. Your eschatology seems to suffer from some glaring ethical flaws from where I'm sitting.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/09/tina_rosenberg.html
Edit: specifically, this is about kidney donation from living donors, not after-death donation.
You are right but I am unable to see why might think it is bad. Poor people taking more risks to come out of poverty is very natural and should be encouraged. Why do you think I left my homeland, left my parents, friends and Gods to come to Silicon Valley ?
If you are not going to allow poor people to take risks and make hard choices you are keeping them in perpetual poverty.
Seems other way round to me. It is the restrictions on organ trade that is keeping poor.
Only in a world where getting rich is about "taking risks" and not about being ruthless, luck, connections, and inheritance.
All those are important but then risk is also one way to get rich faster.
Poor people don't take more risks to come out of poverty... Poor people take risks because they have no choice and they remain in poverty.
> Why do you think I left my homeland, left my parents, friends and Gods to come to Silicon Valley ?
That's not the type of risk we are talking about. We are talking about things like coal miners.