Inheritance is a reasonable policy, but it doesn't have to apply to corpses. Human bodies aren't really property in the same sense; they're typically termed as "quasi-property".
Yes, if organs are taken mandatorily, then it's probably unreasonable to hold the next of kin responsible for the cost of disposing of the body. However, I don't see a problem with the government paying the costs in such a situation - it's obviously worth it for the benefit brought about by the organs.
I watched an excellent documentary recently about mandatory organ donation and how it affects the eventual donors and those around them. I highly recommend it. It's called Crank 2: High Voltage, and it provided some fascinating insight into the subject.
I'm not saying that I am right. There is no right and wrong when it comes to morality. It's all relative. I'm just saying what I personally believe is right. I'm also saying why I believe those things. I'm asking others to do the same. To say what they believe is right and also to explain the reasons for their beliefs. Some of you have said what your beliefs are, but few of you have been able to provide any reasons.
There have been many reasons posted and explained, and you have been proven wrong over and over. The only way you can think that you are beliefs are right and that no one else has provided reasons for their views is that you simply assume them all away in your ScottWorld hypotheticals.
Reread your ScottWorld hypotheticals. You start from the basis that the real world doesn't apply. Then you actually state that the desires of a decedent and his family do not matter in the disposal of his remains. See what you did there? You just assumed you were right from the very start.
Here's an example of your type of reasoning: Everyone wants to live in Cuba. Therefore, Cuba must be a prime real estate market. See how that doesn't reflect the state of affairs of the real world?
If we get to make up hypotheticals that don't comply with real-world science and law, then in my hypothetical, people live in an eternal state of good health and organ transplants are never needed. See how useless that is? You're just mentally masturbating and in denial of the reasons everyone around you is giving you why you're wrong.
If you think this is an example of you being intelligent, you're sadly mistaken. This is an example of how far you'll go in denial.
I watched an excellent documentary recently about mandatory organ donation and how it affects the eventual donors and those around them. I highly recommend it. It's called Crank 2: High Voltage, and it provided some fascinating insight into the subject.
That's actually a little more realistic than the ScottWorld hypotheticals.
I don't care about society. I know what "society" thinks. We all do. What do YOU think. If you were king of the world, would it be that way?
Well, if you want to talk useless fantasy, that's cool - were I the undisputed ruler who could do whatever I so wished - and let's keep it small, just over the US - I would immediately provide incentive to donate organs beyond just feeling good for a little bit, and put research dollars into research into making organ transplants more successful. I would also engage in essentially a campaign to play upon people's thoughts of personal legacy, along the lines that upon one's death, to save the lives of others is a noble thing, something good people do, because they are giving others the chance at life, and that one can create no greater legacy than by giving multiple others the gift of life with your body. Anyone whose organs are unsuitable for transplant which are donated can be instead used in medical research towards improving success rates of transplantation, and thus, also saving lives.
Essentially, instead of being heavy handed and making it mandatory - which people would fight - I would use a soft touch, and attempt to change the general thoughts of society on the issue so that deciding not to donate your organs is not banned, but is so heavily stigmatized that it is effectively so - much in the same way that holding racist or sexist opinions was once acceptable, but is not not strictly illegal thanks to free speech, but is heavily negatively stigmatized. It is admittedly a longer term plan - But not all victories are won with decisive strokes and big, noisy battles, nor are all problems solved by immediate solutions. I will have greater benefit over time, in that it is unlikely to be fought as instituting mandatory organ donation would be, and even after I'm either dead myself or out of office, it would remain and probably actively fight opposition, as hopefully by that time, it would have become part of the culture that donating one's organs upon death is as right, normal, and American as Baseball, Mom and Apple pie.
Churba, seriously. I'm just asking a question here, and you people keep replacing it with a different question. Is it because you are afraid to answer the simple one that I'm asking? I don't want a practical solution to change the world. I just want to know your personal values. That's all I'm asking for. What do you value more. Do you value extending the lives of strangers more than you value the rights of people to have control over their family's corpses or not?
That's the only question I'm asking here. What are your personal values. Yet, people, especially Joe, seem to still be unwilling and/or incapable of answering this simple question.
If I were undisputed ruler (I think that's really what Scott is playing at because he's actually arrogant enough to think he could one day be an undisputed ruler), and I ruled over a world not bound by physical law, as in ScottWorld, i'd just order doctors to start growing organS on trees so that they could then transplant them into people by thinking happy thoughts.
That hypothetical had exactly as much value and applicability to the real world as any of Scott's hypotheticals.
Churba, seriously. I'm just asking a question here, and you people keep replacing it with a different question. Is it because you are afraid to answer the simple one that I'm asking? I don't want a practical solution to change the world. I just want to know your personal values. That's all I'm asking for. What do you value more. Do you value extending the lives of strangers more than you value the rights of people to have control over their family's corpses or not?
That's not quite what you asked, Scott, you asked were I king of the world, would it be that way, and I answered that it it would not, and I presented which way I would make it for the sake of completeness and to explain my position in detail. I can't answer questions you want asked if you don't ask them, and in the past when I've tried to predict what questions you're asking other than what you've asked, I've fucked that up, so I just stick to what you ask for the most part.
My personal values on the issue are contained above, but to give you the short simple version, I agree with some of the ideas that you present - That It is more valuable to save lives, than it is to have organs either rot in the ground or be turned to ash in a crematorium, for example, and that choosing to donate organs someone is no longer using is the more moral choice - but I also think that simply making it mandatory isn't enough, that you need to make it effectively mandatory not through the power of law but the power of culture and society, which make it more likely to extend far, far into the future, and which would in time make it trivial to pass a law to make it so - and not only would that law be easy to pass when organ donation is considered an acceptable standard of society, but people would actively fight anyone who tried to change it being so. I also think that employing such a solution would be of greater benefit for more people, and therefore is the better course of action, as the lives of the few in the short term do not compare to the lives of the uncountable many in the long term, to paraphrase.
My personal values on the issue encompass more that the simple idea of if organs from dead guy A going into Living person B is a good thing, they also include ideas such as how to leverage this obvious idea into greater benefit for all for continuing that for as long as possible, without having to impose my will upon others and take away their right to choose, which I feel is a dangerous proposition. Most of which could easily be gleaned from my answer, I feel.
What do you feel is right and/or wrong and why?
I feel that it is generally right to attempt to save lives with organs that are no longer in use by the previous owner. I also think it's right that a family should be able to carry out the wishes of the deceased RE their remains. I think it is more important to save lives than to respect those wishes, however, I think it is wrong to take away people's freedom to choose, especially when other options are available, such as creating and/or leveraging social contract and cultural concepts to achieve a more lasting result which is harder to change. And there is - I'd be hoping - the answer to the question you're asking. Dissatisfaction with the answer is not something I can control, but naturally, feel free to ask other questions.
If I were undisputed ruler (I think that's really what Scott is playing at because he's actually arrogant enough to think he could one day be an undisputed ruler), and I ruled over a world not bound by physical law, as in ScottWorld, i'd just order doctors to start growing organS on trees so that they could then transplant them into people by thinking happy thoughts.
That hypothetical had exactly as much value and applicability to the real world as any of Scott's hypotheticals.
I don't think you're contributing much to the conversation
If I were undisputed ruler (I think that's really what Scott is playing at because he's actually arrogant enough to think he could one day be an undisputed ruler), and I ruled over a world not bound by physical law, as in ScottWorld, i'd just order doctors to start growing organS on trees so that they could then transplant them into people by thinking happy thoughts.
That hypothetical had exactly as much value and applicability to the real world as any of Scott's hypotheticals.
I don't think you're contributing much to the conversation
Which, since HungryJoe is trying to make examples like Scott, it's like saying Scott isn't contributing to the conversa-
Wait, I think this might be what he was going for.
If I were undisputed ruler (I think that's really what Scott is playing at because he's actually arrogant enough to think he could one day be an undisputed ruler), and I ruled over a world not bound by physical law, as in ScottWorld, i'd just order doctors to start growing organS on trees so that they could then transplant them into people by thinking happy thoughts.
That hypothetical had exactly as much value and applicability to the real world as any of Scott's hypotheticals.
I don't think you're contributing much to the conversation
Which, since HungryJoe is trying to make examples like Scott, it's like saying Scott isn't contributing to the conversa-
Wait, I think this might be what he was going for.
One seems to resemble personal attacks more than the other.
OK, let me rephrase, I regularly ignore HungryJoe's posts because they are full of irrelevant personal attacks. Happy?
Happy? Of course! I do try to be as much of the time as possible.
However, that's entirely irrelevant. This entire discussion started because Scott made a personal attack on someone who didn't want to donate their organs. For Actual personal attacks, We're running roughly at Scott 12, Hungryjoe 6 and 1/2, and as a bonus, Joe restricts his only to Scott, whereas Scott sprays them all around. So while I was making a joke that the FRCF tends to fight a lot, and isn't afraid to fight dirty, your original point that one tends to resemble personal attacks more than the other certainly stands better than your latter, that HungryJoe's posts are full of irrelevant personal attacks.
And no, I don't really believe it's "Subtle trolling" as much as "Being a fuckwit." To call it subtle trolling would be to give you rather too much credit, I think. Oh, and put my tally down as either two and a half or three and a half personal attacks, depending on if you know how to speak Australian, Mate.
All I'm saying is that everyone has a moral code. Some people base it on bullshit, like the bible or something. Some people base it on some sort of weak or strong reasoning, like myself. And some people base it on nothing. They just have the moral code they have with no reason for it other than that's their personal preference.
I am more than willing to state what my moral code is, and my reasons for it being that way. If someone else has a moral code, and is unwilling to share it, or their reasons for it, that's ok. Nobody is forcing anyone to, I'm just asking. However, as a cynical and skeptical person, when someone doesn't share such information that makes me strongly suspect that that person holds a moral position they themselves know is indefensible.
At least a religious person will come out and tell you what they believe and when asked for a reason will say "god says so." Their morals may be good or bad, in my eyes, but the fabric of those morals is strong. They really believe what they believe, and have a reason for it. Someone unwilling to even state their own moral code, let alone the reasons for it, has a weak fabric if any. I personally must assume that such a person either has no morals, or holds a moral code they themselves know to be indefensible. If someone holds a moral, and simultaneously knows it to be wrong, that's a crazy fucked up kinda thing.
All I'm saying is that everyone has a moral code. Some people base it on bullshit, like the bible or something. Some people base it on some sort of weak or strong reasoning, like myself. And some people base it on nothing. They just have the moral code they have with no reason for it other than that's their personal preference.
That's an entirely fair call.
I am more than willing to state what my moral code is, and my reasons for it being that way. If someone else has a moral code, and is unwilling to share it, or their reasons for it, that's ok. Nobody is forcing anyone to, I'm just asking. However, as a cynical and skeptical person, when someone doesn't share such information that makes me strongly suspect that that person holds a moral position they themselves know is indefensible.
Again, that's fair, though I'd consider the last part a bit of a long bow to draw - I doubt many people, if any, hold a moral position they would know to be indefensible. Also, someone might not share such information, simply because they have not put the sort of serious thought towards their moral code that people like you and I may have done, and therefore, really don't have the information - They can't give you what they haven't got, to paraphrase the song.
There are exceptions, of course - For example, someone who is a clinical narcissist may possibly have a moral code which is indefensible and which if you posed it as someone else's moral code, they would consider it so, but they might not consider it so as it applies to themselves simply because they are mentally ill.
If someone holds a moral, and simultaneously knows it to be wrong, that's a crazy fucked up kinda thing.
Also, someone might not share such information, simply because they have not put the sort of serious thought towards their moral code that people like you and I may have done, and therefore, really don't have the information - They can't give you what they haven't got, to paraphrase the song.
In which case I want to make them think about their morals. This is a situation where there is a chance they might change their morals if they are made to actually think about them. But if they are actively evading that line of thought, that is what makes me more suspicious.
In which case I want to make them think about their morals. This is a situation where there is a chance they might change their morals if they are made to actually think about them. But if they are actively evading that line of thought, that is what makes me more suspicious.
Well, if someone is actively avoiding it, that is suspicious. With that addition, it's quite reasonable.
I strongly suspect the reason you're being such a bully/troll about this is because you failed so badly at your argument and you're trying to make yourself feel better.
I strongly suspect the reason you're being such a bully/troll about this is because you failed so badly at your argument and you're trying to make yourself feel better.
You still haven't told us your personal feelings on this matter.
And no, I don't really believe it's "Subtle trolling" as much as "Being a fuckwit." To call it subtle trolling would be to give you rather too much credit, I think.
And no, I don't really believe it's "Subtle trolling" as much as "Being a fuckwit." To call it subtle trolling would be to give you rather too much credit, I think.
I strongly suspect the reason you're being such a bully/troll about this is because you failed so badly at your argument and you're trying to make yourself feel better.
You still haven't told us your personal feelings on this matter.
If you'd put on your reading glasses, you would know my personal feelings.
Firstly, my feelings are in no way influenced by your hypothetical. My feelings are informed by the real world and cannot be divorced from the state of law and physical science in the real world. I am loathe to substitute my judgment for others in personal matters like this. I don't care if they want to be an organ donor or not. It's their decision. Their freedom to choose whether or not to be a donor is very important to me. I would never tell someone that their feelings about their body or their family member's body don't matter or that their feelings are worthless. If they do not want to donate their organs, that's fine with me. I don't care what their motivations are. As I keep saying, I respect their decision. As for myself, I am an organ donor because I don't care what happens to my organs after I'm dead. BUT - I know that others DO care, and I'm not about to impose my beliefs on them just as I hope that, in turn, they don't impose their beliefs upon me.
That being said, if someone like Churba wanted to INFLUENCE their decision, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is someone arrogantly deciding that they know better and can make a better choice for the potential donor and thus arrogantly seek to take the decision away. This is the type of thing that makes atheists seem every bit as crazy as religious types. As far as I'm concerned, an atheist that wants to impose atheism upon people is just as bad as a Mormon that wants to impose Mormonism upon people. As I've noted before, this is not the only time I've seen you come down with a very authoritarian, anti-freedom stance that you wish you could impose upon others. The only thing that makes me feel at ease about this is that I know you'll never have the power to actually impose ScottWorld upon us all.
And no, I don't really believe it's "Subtle trolling" as much as "Being a fuckwit." To call it subtle trolling would be to give you rather too much credit, I think.
I hope you do not mean that.
Churbs doesn't mince words.
Hm. Well blind arrogance and condescension combined with insulting me... on my shit list. Bye.
And no, I don't really believe it's "Subtle trolling" as much as "Being a fuckwit." To call it subtle trolling would be to give you rather too much credit, I think.
I hope you do not mean that.
Churbs doesn't mince words.
Yep. I'm not one to piss about, if I'm not fond of you, I'm clear on the point - I don't need to waste the calories on sparing your feelings, if I think you're a wanker.
Hm. Well blind arrogance and condescension combined with insulting me... on my shit list. Bye.
Insulting you? Kid, I have not yet begun to insult you. I'd say something to the effect of fearing being on your "shit list", but let's face it, you've got so little impact that it's not even worth the effort to be sarcastic, nor to try an express the immensity of all the fucks I do not give. Credit where credit is due, though, smart move, we don't like each other, so better to cut our losses. Saying you're ceasing communicating with me is the first smart thing you've said since you started.
Firstly, my feelings are in no way influenced by your hypothetical. My feelings are informed by the real world and cannot be divorced from the state of law and physical science in the real world. I am loathe to substitute my judgment for others in personal matters like this. I don't care if they want to be an organ donor or not. It's their decision. Their freedom to choose whether or not to be a donor is very important to me. I would never tell someone that their feelings about their body or their family member's body don't matter or that their feelings are worthless. If they do not want to donate their organs, that's fine with me. I don't care what their motivations are. As I keep saying, I respect their decision. As for myself, I am an organ donor because I don't care what happens to my body after I'm dead. BUT - I know that others DO care, and I'm not about to impose my beliefs on them just as I hope that, in turn, they don't impose their beliefs upon me.
That being said, if someone like Churba wanted to INFLUENCE their decision, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is someone arrogantly deciding that they know better and can make a better choice for the potential donor and thus arrogantly seek to take the decision away. This is the type of thing that makes atheists seem every bit as crazy as religious types. As far as I'm concerned, an atheist that wants to impose atheisnm upon me is just as bad as a Mormon that wants to impose Mormonism upon me. As I've noted before, this is not the only time I've seen you come down with a very authoritarian, anti-freedom stance that you wish you could impose upon others. The only thing that makes me feel at ease about this is that I know you'll never have the power to actually impose ScottWorld upon us all.
I also agree that I do not want to impose my beliefs on others, and I also stand for freedom. But freedom doesn't mean absolute freedom. While I believe people should be free to be really stupid, or even harm themselves, I do not think people should be free to harm others. What many religions demand be done with dead bodies is wasteful at best, and very harmful at worst. Therefore, I have absolutely no problem removing that freedom.
I mean, come on. If I'm going to support removing the freedom to sell raw milk I'm certainly going to have no problem limiting freedom to handle corpses.
See, this is the type of sloppy thinking that gets you into trouble. No one, not even you has even opined that deciding not to be an organ donor actively harms others. You have not shown that all people who decide not to be organ donors are motivated by religious feelings. You definitely have not shown that "what many religions demand be done with dead bodies is wasteful at best, and very harmful at worst". You're ready to take away that freedom based solely on your unproven, personal belief. Since your belief is unproven and based on hypotheticals that are in no way based on reality, your belief is just as irrational as any religious belief. In my opinion, that makes you no better than a Mormon trying to tell me that I shouldn't drink coffee because God doesn't want me to.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more your hypotheticals sound like religious parables. You start by intentionally rejecting science and the physical world, and then tailor a little story for yourself designed to lead to a moral you've already decided is true in spite of physical evidence to the contrary. Your attempt to impose the morality derived from your parable upon people who don't agree with you is irrational religious persecution.
Finally, no one, not even you, has opined that the freedom to actively engage in harmful commerce is the same as freedom to decide what is done with one's organs. You've definitely not proved it.
If anyone needs my meat when I go, they can have it. Seriously, I won't need it anymore and they could really make use of it. It is no different than donating clothes I don't wear anymore to the needy. I'm not only an organ donor, but I have instructed my family to donate any remains left after donation to medical schools or other scientific educational purposes.
To keep ones organs when the donor pool is more limited than the need is wasteful. You may not actively harm someone, but you could be passively harming someone who needs something that you no longer have need/use of (particularly in light of the limited pool of usuable organs that are available when compared the greater number of people that need those organs). If you don't see wastefulness as a bad thing, then that is your personal moral code. However, if you are willing to recycle/re-purpose other physical goods, why make the distinction with your body parts?
Equating body parts to recyclable physical goods requires a lot of assumptions, most notably that body parts are perfectly harvestable and recyclable. As we've seen, this is not actually true.
Scott's reasoning about this is irrational and religious in nature. To your credit, you sound more rational.
Equating body parts to recyclable physical goods requires a lot of assumptions, most notably that body parts are perfectly harvestable and recyclable.
No, it does not. Recyclable physical goods aren't "perfectly harvestable and recyclable" either. The argument isn't that all organs should be taken; rather, we can work out if the organs are usable before we bother to try, so we already know the organs could be of use. Sure, the organs might be rejected, but the critical fact is that they might not, and that's much better than not trying those organs in the first place.
Organs are potentially very valuable, and they don't need to be "perfectly harvestable and recyclable" to be worthwhile.
Comments
Yes, if organs are taken mandatorily, then it's probably unreasonable to hold the next of kin responsible for the cost of disposing of the body. However, I don't see a problem with the government paying the costs in such a situation - it's obviously worth it for the benefit brought about by the organs.
Reread your ScottWorld hypotheticals. You start from the basis that the real world doesn't apply. Then you actually state that the desires of a decedent and his family do not matter in the disposal of his remains. See what you did there? You just assumed you were right from the very start.
Here's an example of your type of reasoning: Everyone wants to live in Cuba. Therefore, Cuba must be a prime real estate market. See how that doesn't reflect the state of affairs of the real world?
If we get to make up hypotheticals that don't comply with real-world science and law, then in my hypothetical, people live in an eternal state of good health and organ transplants are never needed. See how useless that is? You're just mentally masturbating and in denial of the reasons everyone around you is giving you why you're wrong.
If you think this is an example of you being intelligent, you're sadly mistaken. This is an example of how far you'll go in denial. That's actually a little more realistic than the ScottWorld hypotheticals.
Essentially, instead of being heavy handed and making it mandatory - which people would fight - I would use a soft touch, and attempt to change the general thoughts of society on the issue so that deciding not to donate your organs is not banned, but is so heavily stigmatized that it is effectively so - much in the same way that holding racist or sexist opinions was once acceptable, but is not not strictly illegal thanks to free speech, but is heavily negatively stigmatized.
It is admittedly a longer term plan - But not all victories are won with decisive strokes and big, noisy battles, nor are all problems solved by immediate solutions. I will have greater benefit over time, in that it is unlikely to be fought as instituting mandatory organ donation would be, and even after I'm either dead myself or out of office, it would remain and probably actively fight opposition, as hopefully by that time, it would have become part of the culture that donating one's organs upon death is as right, normal, and American as Baseball, Mom and Apple pie.
That's the only question I'm asking here. What are your personal values. Yet, people, especially Joe, seem to still be unwilling and/or incapable of answering this simple question.
What do you feel is right and/or wrong and why?
That hypothetical had exactly as much value and applicability to the real world as any of Scott's hypotheticals.
My personal values on the issue are contained above, but to give you the short simple version, I agree with some of the ideas that you present - That It is more valuable to save lives, than it is to have organs either rot in the ground or be turned to ash in a crematorium, for example, and that choosing to donate organs someone is no longer using is the more moral choice - but I also think that simply making it mandatory isn't enough, that you need to make it effectively mandatory not through the power of law but the power of culture and society, which make it more likely to extend far, far into the future, and which would in time make it trivial to pass a law to make it so - and not only would that law be easy to pass when organ donation is considered an acceptable standard of society, but people would actively fight anyone who tried to change it being so. I also think that employing such a solution would be of greater benefit for more people, and therefore is the better course of action, as the lives of the few in the short term do not compare to the lives of the uncountable many in the long term, to paraphrase.
My personal values on the issue encompass more that the simple idea of if organs from dead guy A going into Living person B is a good thing, they also include ideas such as how to leverage this obvious idea into greater benefit for all for continuing that for as long as possible, without having to impose my will upon others and take away their right to choose, which I feel is a dangerous proposition. Most of which could easily be gleaned from my answer, I feel. I feel that it is generally right to attempt to save lives with organs that are no longer in use by the previous owner. I also think it's right that a family should be able to carry out the wishes of the deceased RE their remains. I think it is more important to save lives than to respect those wishes, however, I think it is wrong to take away people's freedom to choose, especially when other options are available, such as creating and/or leveraging social contract and cultural concepts to achieve a more lasting result which is harder to change. And there is - I'd be hoping - the answer to the question you're asking. Dissatisfaction with the answer is not something I can control, but naturally, feel free to ask other questions.
Wait, I think this might be what he was going for.
However, that's entirely irrelevant. This entire discussion started because Scott made a personal attack on someone who didn't want to donate their organs. For Actual personal attacks, We're running roughly at Scott 12, Hungryjoe 6 and 1/2, and as a bonus, Joe restricts his only to Scott, whereas Scott sprays them all around. So while I was making a joke that the FRCF tends to fight a lot, and isn't afraid to fight dirty, your original point that one tends to resemble personal attacks more than the other certainly stands better than your latter, that HungryJoe's posts are full of irrelevant personal attacks.
And no, I don't really believe it's "Subtle trolling" as much as "Being a fuckwit." To call it subtle trolling would be to give you rather too much credit, I think. Oh, and put my tally down as either two and a half or three and a half personal attacks, depending on if you know how to speak Australian, Mate.
I am more than willing to state what my moral code is, and my reasons for it being that way. If someone else has a moral code, and is unwilling to share it, or their reasons for it, that's ok. Nobody is forcing anyone to, I'm just asking. However, as a cynical and skeptical person, when someone doesn't share such information that makes me strongly suspect that that person holds a moral position they themselves know is indefensible.
At least a religious person will come out and tell you what they believe and when asked for a reason will say "god says so." Their morals may be good or bad, in my eyes, but the fabric of those morals is strong. They really believe what they believe, and have a reason for it. Someone unwilling to even state their own moral code, let alone the reasons for it, has a weak fabric if any. I personally must assume that such a person either has no morals, or holds a moral code they themselves know to be indefensible. If someone holds a moral, and simultaneously knows it to be wrong, that's a crazy fucked up kinda thing.
There are exceptions, of course - For example, someone who is a clinical narcissist may possibly have a moral code which is indefensible and which if you posed it as someone else's moral code, they would consider it so, but they might not consider it so as it applies to themselves simply because they are mentally ill. It is indeed.
Firstly, my feelings are in no way influenced by your hypothetical. My feelings are informed by the real world and cannot be divorced from the state of law and physical science in the real world. I am loathe to substitute my judgment for others in personal matters like this. I don't care if they want to be an organ donor or not. It's their decision. Their freedom to choose whether or not to be a donor is very important to me. I would never tell someone that their feelings about their body or their family member's body don't matter or that their feelings are worthless. If they do not want to donate their organs, that's fine with me. I don't care what their motivations are. As I keep saying, I respect their decision. As for myself, I am an organ donor because I don't care what happens to my organs after I'm dead. BUT - I know that others DO care, and I'm not about to impose my beliefs on them just as I hope that, in turn, they don't impose their beliefs upon me.
That being said, if someone like Churba wanted to INFLUENCE their decision, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is someone arrogantly deciding that they know better and can make a better choice for the potential donor and thus arrogantly seek to take the decision away. This is the type of thing that makes atheists seem every bit as crazy as religious types. As far as I'm concerned, an atheist that wants to impose atheism upon people is just as bad as a Mormon that wants to impose Mormonism upon people. As I've noted before, this is not the only time I've seen you come down with a very authoritarian, anti-freedom stance that you wish you could impose upon others. The only thing that makes me feel at ease about this is that I know you'll never have the power to actually impose ScottWorld upon us all.
I mean, come on. If I'm going to support removing the freedom to sell raw milk I'm certainly going to have no problem limiting freedom to handle corpses.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more your hypotheticals sound like religious parables. You start by intentionally rejecting science and the physical world, and then tailor a little story for yourself designed to lead to a moral you've already decided is true in spite of physical evidence to the contrary. Your attempt to impose the morality derived from your parable upon people who don't agree with you is irrational religious persecution.
Finally, no one, not even you, has opined that the freedom to actively engage in harmful commerce is the same as freedom to decide what is done with one's organs. You've definitely not proved it.
To keep ones organs when the donor pool is more limited than the need is wasteful. You may not actively harm someone, but you could be passively harming someone who needs something that you no longer have need/use of (particularly in light of the limited pool of usuable organs that are available when compared the greater number of people that need those organs). If you don't see wastefulness as a bad thing, then that is your personal moral code. However, if you are willing to recycle/re-purpose other physical goods, why make the distinction with your body parts?
Scott's reasoning about this is irrational and religious in nature. To your credit, you sound more rational.
The argument isn't that all organs should be taken; rather, we can work out if the organs are usable before we bother to try, so we already know the organs could be of use. Sure, the organs might be rejected, but the critical fact is that they might not, and that's much better than not trying those organs in the first place.
Organs are potentially very valuable, and they don't need to be "perfectly harvestable and recyclable" to be worthwhile.