My Kidney Challenge II

[renniks]

Are you sure? If I make a decision about my actions, and the course of action I take results in someone dying, then why make the difference?

Because inaction isn't the same as a deliberate action to end a life.
If I see someone drowning and I don't save them, that's not murder. If I hold them under, it is. Pretty obvious.

 

[Kylie]

Because inaction isn't the same as a deliberate action to end a life.
If I see someone drowning and I don't save them, that's not murder. If I hold them under, it is. Pretty obvious.

If I see someone drowning and decide, "Nah, I'm not going to help them, I'd rather they die," is that not just as bad?

 

[renniks]

If I see someone drowning and decide, "Nah, I'm not going to help them, I'd rather they die," is that not just as bad?

No.
It's still not the same as murder.
You didn't cause their death.

 

[Kylie]

No.
It's still not the same as murder.
You didn't cause their death.

If Person A decides on a course of action that results in the death of Person B, and Person A knows that Person B will die as a result of this course of action, and Person A still decides to take this course of action anyway, is Person A responsible for Person B's death?

Yes or no please.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

The scenarios are not parallel.

In the kidney scenario the person who is donating did not bring about the need for a kidney in the person.

In pregnancy the people engaging in sex did bring about the need for the baby to live in the uterus.

So?

If you needed a kidney and I was the only possible donor, but I said, "Nah, don't feel like it, sorry," wouldn't you be upset?

Would I be upset that I would die? Yes.

Would I be upset that you wouldn't donate? Yes.

But I would not hold you responsible, because you didn't cause the situation. So I don't see an obligation on your part.

But if you engage in sex and it results in pregnancy, then both parties that participated are responsible for the life that is brought about by that decision.

tall73 said: ↑

Do you think a man having sex with a woman should have to pay child support if the birth control methods used fail? What if he didn't want the child?

He is required to pay child support because he engaged in an act that can lead to life, even when that is not the desired outcome, and even if prevention methods are used.

Not the same thing. the man doesn't have to be pregnant for nine months (that's no walk in the park), or raise the kid.

The man can bugger off and have nothing to do with the kid apart from paying a bit each month. So don't try to make them out to be the same thing.

I did not say they involve all the same burdens or risks. I said that we hold the man responsible because he participated in an act that led to this new life. And we don't let him out of responsibility if he says he didn't want a child, or birth control failed.

The woman made the same choice to engage in sex, knowing that pregnancy could result. If he can be held responsible based on his participation in the act, she can also.

Your scenario avoided the notion of responsibility for the ramifications of one's choices. But that is part of the equation in the vast majority of abortions, save those where rape was involved.

 

[tall73]

You do not have the right to force your beliefs onto others. Your morality applies to YOU and no one else.

Do you think laws to regulate society are valid? And if so, do you base them on grounds other than morality?

 

[FireDragon76]

There is a little girl, named Sally. She needs a kidney transplant or she will die. You are the only compatible donor available.

Should you be forced you to give up one of your kidneys to save her life?

Why or why not?

No. People have a right to bodily autonomy (which is also why I support a right to abortion on non-viable fetuses).

 

[Hammster]

Three hundred and three thousand isn't very many? Oh that's nice.

It’s less than people who die in car crashes every year. So out of 7+ billion people, it’s not that high.

 

[Hammster]

You do not have the right to force your beliefs onto others. Your morality applies to YOU and no one else.

That your morality. You can’t tell me what my morality is.

 

[Hammster]

If I see someone drowning and decide, "Nah, I'm not going to help them, I'd rather they die," is that not just as bad?

For you, it might be. But you can’t say it’s bad if it’s someone else.

 

[FireDragon76]

That your morality. You can’t tell me what my morality is.

That's not her morality. That's the basis for living in a pluralistic society peacefully, where people obviously disagree on matters of the highest good or the transcendent.

 

[Kylie]

Would I be upset that I would die? Yes.

Would I be upset that you wouldn't donate? Yes.

But I would not hold you responsible, because you didn't cause the situation. So I don't see an obligation on your part.

Irrelevant. I am still making a choice that results in you dying.

But if you engage in sex and it results in pregnancy, then both parties that participated are responsible for the life that is brought about by that decision.

But one party bears a much larger burden than the other. In fact, the other party can bugger off never to be heard from again.

I did not say they involve all the same burdens or risks. I said that we hold the man responsible because he participated in an act that led to this new life. And we don't let him out of responsibility if he says he didn't want a child, or birth control failed.

The woman made the same choice to engage in sex, knowing that pregnancy could result. If he can be held responsible based on his participation in the act, she can also.

Your scenario avoided the notion of responsibility for the ramifications of one's choices. But that is part of the equation in the vast majority of abortions, save those where rape was involved.

If we are going to say, "If you participate in activity X when Y can result, then you just have to deal with it and not do anything that could avoid it," then why don't we apply the same logic to people who get innured? Break a bone? Just deal with it. No pain killers or cast for you. You knew the risks when you decided to do whatever it was that you were doing when you broke your bone.

 

[Kylie]

That your morality. You can’t tell me what my morality is.

Why not? You seem to have no problem when you can push your morality onto others, why do you suddenly cry foul when you are being treated the way you treat others? There's a word for that. HYPOCRISY.

 

[Hammster]

That's not her morality. That's the basis for living in a pluralistic society peacefully, where people obviously disagree on matters of the highest good or the transcendent.

Nope, that’s her forcing her morality on me.

 

[Hammster]

Why not? You seem to have no problem when you can push your morality onto others, why do you suddenly cry foul when you are being treated the way you treat others? There's a word for that. HYPOCRISY.

I’m just using your own argument against you. Again. You have no basis to say I’m wrong. All you have is personal feelings.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

The scenarios are not parallel.

In the kidney scenario the person who is donating did not bring about the need for a kidney in the person.

In pregnancy the people engaging in sex did bring about the need for the baby to live in the uterus.

Kylie said: ↑

So?

If you needed a kidney and I was the only possible donor, but I said, "Nah, don't feel like it, sorry," wouldn't you be upset?

tall73 said: ↑

Would I be upset that I would die? Yes.

Would I be upset that you wouldn't donate? Yes.

But I would not hold you responsible, because you didn't cause the situation. So I don't see an obligation on your part.

Irrelevant. I am still making a choice that results in you dying.

Of course it is not irrelevant whether you were responsible for my condition or not.

Being "upset" is not the basis of an ethical obligation. The person wanting you to donate parts of your body has no claim on the parts of your body. And for all we know there may be multiple people who need a kidney and you are the only potential donor. The one who is most "upset" is not thereby entitled to your organs.

But when you bring a life into being by engaging in sex, you do have an obligation to that life. And society has recognized that, such as laws regarding child support, child neglect laws, etc.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said: ↑

Do you think a man having sex with a woman should have to pay child support if the birth control methods used fail? What if he didn't want the child?

He is required to pay child support because he engaged in an act that can lead to life, even when that is not the desired outcome, and even if prevention methods are used.

Kylie said: ↑

Not the same thing. the man doesn't have to be pregnant for nine months (that's no walk in the park), or raise the kid.

The man can bugger off and have nothing to do with the kid apart from paying a bit each month. So don't try to make them out to be the same thing.

tall73 said: ↑
I did not say they involve all the same burdens or risks. I said that we hold the man responsible because he participated in an act that led to this new life. And we don't let him out of responsibility if he says he didn't want a child, or birth control failed.

The woman made the same choice to engage in sex, knowing that pregnancy could result. If he can be held responsible based on his participation in the act, she can also.

Your scenario avoided the notion of responsibility for the ramifications of one's choices. But that is part of the equation in the vast majority of abortions, save those where rape was involved.

But one party bears a much larger burden than the other. In fact, the other party can bugger off never to be heard from again.

Noting level of burden and risk does not address the claim that leads to the obligation.

They both have responsibility to the child because they engaged in the act that brought about the child. They may have different levels of risk in that. But it doesn't change the reason for the obligation. Your scenario seeks to avoid the obligation brought about by bringing a dependent life into being.

Do you favor not requiring the man to pay child support?

If we are going to say, "If you participate in activity X when Y can result, then you just have to deal with it and not do anything that could avoid it," then why don't we apply the same logic to people who get innured? Break a bone? Just deal with it. No pain killers or cast for you. You knew the risks when you decided to do whatever it was that you were doing when you broke your bone.

If you undertake a risky activity that harms yourself, you can take measures to mitigate, as you note.

And the same is true of the pregnancy. Many women are given pain killers when giving birth.

However, your injury scenario is not parallel as it doesn't involve another life that you have brought about. Pregnancy does. And you have an obligation to that life, just as the man does, though each may, due to biology, have different levels of burden and risk.

 

[tall73]

Kylie said: ↑
As long as you understand that such a moral viewpoint is SUBJECTIVE and not objective, and thus should not be forced onto other people who may not necessarily hold that same viewpoint.

But sure. If you believe that elective abortions are wrong and need to be punished in the same way as a murder, then by all means subject yourself to such a punishment if you ever have an abortion.

Hammster said: ↑
My morality says it should be forced. You can’t say it’s wrong because it’s subjective.

Kylie said: ↑
You do not have the right to force your beliefs onto others. Your morality applies to YOU and no one else.

Hammster said: ↑

That your morality. You can’t tell me what my morality is.

Why not? You seem to have no problem when you can push your morality onto others, why do you suddenly cry foul when you are being treated the way you treat others? There's a word for that. HYPOCRISY.

He is not being a hypocrite. His system involves imposing morality. And he is living up to that system by imposing morality. Who are you to question his moral system?

It would be hypocrisy for you to impose your views on others as you believe that is wrong. It wouldn't be for him if he doesn't think it is wrong, assuming we are going with your notion of each person creating morality for themselves.

But this comes back to the question of whether you see laws of society as legitimate, and if so whether laws have a moral basis.

 

[renniks]

If Person A decides on a course of action that results in the death of Person B, and Person A knows that Person B will die as a result of this course of action, and Person A still decides to take this course of action anyway, is Person A responsible for Person B's death?

Yes or no please.

That depends whether person A actually caused person's B's death or merely didn't prevent it from happening. I already covered this.

 

[Astrid]

tall73 said: ↑

The scenarios are not parallel.

In the kidney scenario the person who is donating did not bring about the need for a kidney in the person.

In pregnancy the people engaging in sex did bring about the need for the baby to live in the uterus.



Would I be upset that I would die? Yes.

Would I be upset that you wouldn't donate? Yes.

But I would not hold you responsible, because you didn't cause the situation. So I don't see an obligation on your part.

But if you engage in sex and it results in pregnancy, then both parties that participated are responsible for the life that is brought about by that decision.

tall73 said: ↑

Do you think a man having sex with a woman should have to pay child support if the birth control methods used fail? What if he didn't want the child?

He is required to pay child support because he engaged in an act that can lead to life, even when that is not the desired outcome, and even if prevention methods are used.



I did not say they involve all the same burdens or risks. I said that we hold the man responsible because he participated in an act that led to this new life. And we don't let him out of responsibility if he says he didn't want a child, or birth control failed.

The woman made the same choice to engage in sex, knowing that pregnancy could result. If he can be held responsible based on his participation in the act, she can also.

Your scenario avoided the notion of responsibility for the ramifications of one's choices. But that is part of the equation in the vast majority of abortions, save those where rape was involved.

Whatsoever ye do unto the least among ye...