Voluntourism

           I do agree with the article's perspective that most of the voluntourism done today isn't very beneficial to the local area and with the case of orphans, it can actually be harmful. However, I do think that if the aim of voluntourism was shifted from the volunteers just gaining life experience to the poor and impoverished it could do a lot of good. The articles mentioned that just hanging out with orphans or building homes doesn't really help the situation for any of the people since it doesn't give them any actual skills or help elevate them out of their current situation. Even small changes could be done to make it more beneficial to the local population, such as farming and giving out food instead of just hanging out with orphans and building houses. Another good alternative, though it might limit the number of people that could apply, would be to teach courses in agriculture or a marketable skill that would help them gain employment. So overall while i do agree with the complaints that voluntourism doesn't currently do that much good, it could be changed to actually help out the impoverished people.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Monday night after Thanksgiving break by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about volunteer tourism, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about volunteer tourism.

A change

In the world of so many people it is becoming increasingly alarming as to how bad the effects of natural disasters become. The people affected need help and the damage that happens needs to be repaired for that area to resume normal life, but the way the world approaches it completely at the wrong angle. As shown in the article about Iran in Bam there was an earthquake in 2003 and the effect of international aid was abysmal  at best. It was so abysmal in fact that afterwards Iran started to distaste disaster aid to the point that it restructured it system to better help theses situations hence the earthquake management in Baluchistan in 2013. The wrong movement of alot of relief aid is that they just throw money and supplies at an issue and expect it to be completely solved. That cannot be the case, because if there is no infrastructure then there cannot be a fully solved problem. Moreso even if there is infrastructure but there is no way to improve it, then there is no actual way to help. The world should honestly think about the Chinese approach to solving the disaster and instability crisis in the world, invest. If one puts money down to build an actual layer of infrastructure then there is an actual way to help the country. If you provide an investment then the country's government will have to pay back and cause the actual momentum to improve will start. There has to be an active role in aid aside from a couple of workers and doctors on the ground, to reshape the world there needs to a proactive role in actual cementing a stable block to build on. Without a stable platform there is nothing left but instability and inability to do anything but mop up bloody from a wound but never seal it completely shut.

Foreign Aid

Although foreign aid and intervention has proven to be more complicated than simply bringing in food and supplies, or giving money to  "poor" countries, I do believe it is still essential.

Many Western countries have a history of exploiting these  "poor" countries and have hindered their progress. I believe these western countries are now indebted to the other countries and must work to reverse the damage they have done. Many of the articles we read for this class argue that foreign aid has not been as helpful as it should be, however it seems the problem is not the aid itself, but rather the distribution. Instead of giving local governments money, which has been embezzled from the public into individuals' hands, we, or those giving aid, should invest in education, and improving the economy. Perhaps we can invest in individuals through grants and micro loans in order for them to become educated and empower them to improve their local communities. This ground-up effect may be the catalyst for a sustainable society. As some of the texts pointed out, we should not bring in food from the US, we should support the local farmers which fuels their economy. We should also not bring in condoms from the US to prevent HIV, but rather buy them in Asia where they are cheaper.

If we really wanted to help, we would not be half-assing (excuse my language), our aid. We would also attempt to be more culturally sensitive and not provide meals with pork in Islamic societies. Ideally we should work in teams with people from many backgrounds, with expertise in various fields, and with the locals in order to ensure the best distribution.

Although I do not know much about micro loans, from what I've read, it appears as though they have helped restore the economy and society for many. Especially when the recipient was a woman. This independence has empowered her and when she no longer needs to rely on her husband, she would endure less violence; not to say it has completed ended gender violence. If small donors have been able to impact societies, I do not see why foreign aid should not make more of an impact, if distributed correctly.

Blog post 12

If you choose to post by Monday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about global aid, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about global aid.

Corporate Social Responsibility

In “Defending Sweatshops,” Jagdish Bhagwati’s recognizes the existence of a “Corporate Social Responsibility,” but does not define its meaning aside from excluding higher wages for sweatshop workers. My understanding of “CSR” is that businesses owe their existence, and therefore their ability to profit, to society. Because of the nature of this relationship, businesses have certain obligations to society that they must fulfill. Bhagwati writes, “Rewarding workers who are already doing better than their equally impoverished brethren is not my idea of what I would do by way of my CSR; and you should not be able to browbeat me into saying that your way should be my way.” If Bhagwati accepts my definition of “CSR,” I will argue that Bhagwati’s acknowledgment of a “CSR,” followed by his statement that “you” (society) cannot browbeat business into “your” way simply does not work.

            Bhagwati acknowledges that business owe society for their existence and must fulfill certain obligations. With this in mind, it makes little sense for Bhagwati to argue that society cannot argue for its way to be his way. If an organization or government can gather enough societal support to demand that businesses pay employees more respectable wages, than businesses should accept this as part of their obligation to society. Organizations representing the interest of society are responsible for establishing the rules of social responsibility that businesses owe, not businesses. I believe it is more reasonable to put faith in these organizations to establish those responsibilities than businesses themselves, because while businesses will want to maximize their profits while doing the least they can to benefit society, groups advocating for more difficult obligations are doing so with the purpose of benefiting society as a whole. Setting unreasonable responsibilities would be detrimental, and only those they believe are worthwhile and fair would be put in place. 

Sweatshops

In Jagdish Bhagwati’s piece, “Defense of Sweatshops,” he commits the fallacy of equivocation when he talks about corporate social responsibility, or CSR, as he calls it.  He argues that by asking corporations to pay sweatshop workers a living wage, they are asking them to be altruistic because this is more than “what the market pays.”  He says that this is asking them to have corporate social responsibility, but that corporations should be able to choose how they want to apply this responsibility, for example by building playgrounds.  However, the CSR of building playgrounds is not the same as the CSR that people are asking for.  Building playgrounds helps people, but the people in favor of CSR are not saying “you have a responsibility to be a positive influence in society in general.”  They are saying “you have a responsibility to care for the people who are a part of your company, or at least not to exploit them.”  These are two very different takes on CSR, and the author pretends that people are asking for the first definition.

Bhagwati might respond that these two things really are the same, because they both go above and beyond what is really required, and that corporations are not exploiting people because they are merely paying “what the market pays.”  This is unreasonable because he says himself that these sweatshops are often the only option people have, and that many would otherwise turn to child prostitution.  He is essentially arguing here that it is perfectly ethical to pay people a pittance for incredibly hard work because it is better than sex slavery.

Circumstances

The issue I find with sweat shops is the amount of restrictions that are not set on the labor of the country. The reason that U.S. companies are able to go out of hand and girls like Meem are allowed to work at that age is because the companies that function in the west are not subjugated by the labor laws of the west. The companies give revenue to the country that is a fraction of what is made in the U.S. but because the government and the people need it, there isn't much of a choice to be had. Basic working privileges such as toilets, breaks and hour restrictions are non existent here, because if it were the companies would not be there in the first place. The root isn't trying to fix the immediate problem, because that only lasts so long as a solution, its to fix the bigger problem at hand, which is government's management in countries with heavy sweatshops. Their management over their human rights allowance and their people's sovereignty should be their responsibility. Wages as shown by Ghagwati is not a huge thing and does sustain people, its just that when compared to the dollar value it seems diminished. The bigger issue is the working conditions and those come under the government and corporation's responsibility. To help that cause infrastructure has to be created and the well being of the economy has to be leveled so that governments have leverage against companies to create a surrounding that can aid to well being of the people.  

Sweatshops

The most troubling thing that I found within this subject came from the Aulakh article mostly where a nine year old girl who once enjoyed her childhood had the focus of her life change so quickly to being centered around her job in a sewing factory. Even worse was that her aspirations were not to one day get away from working in a sweatshop, but rather to one day work in a larger factory just because there was more money to be made.
When Meem described her day as being a good one, it would seem that it meant that something good actually happened for her that day. Instead, her description of a good day was one in which she was not yelled at for humming too loudly while she sat on the floor and worked, and the electricity did not play hooky in that the three ceiling fans in the building to keep everyone from apparent heat exhaustion kept running throughout her 9 am to 9 pm shift.
This led me to wonder why someone would allow children to essentially give up their current and future lives to work all day every day under conditions that are seemingly detrimental to both their physical and mental health. One opinion that was brought up was that the children are the best workers because they "don't know any better" and they do not complain about the pain that they are subjected to while working (i.e. chronic bodily aches and pains). It seems to me that the reason the children do not complain is because they are in constant fear of the adult individuals that they work for. This nine year old evidently gets yelled at for simply humming or talking while she works. It is also described that she does not look up as she sits on the floor and works. It does not seem to me that these children "do not know any better", but rather their minds have been warped by their working conditions to be fearful of saying anything at all so as not to make their situations worse than they already are.
Finally, it was brought up in the Satyarthi article that many countries use excuses of adult unemployment, illiteracy, and other factors to justify the use of child labor in poverty. I would ask in this case, if the rate of adult unemployment and illiteracy is so high, why would the unemployed adults not attempt to find work in these factories rather than sacrifice the lives and potential to be educated of their children instead? If these children can go to school and be educated so as to better this unemployment situation for future generations, it would seem that the door would open for the potential of decreasing the poverty level in these areas in the future. Rather, it is apparently seen as good for these children to work in these factories in order to avoid resorting to prostitution or starvation, as if those are the only other options presented to all of them in their situation.

When companies have the means

Bhagwati seems to confuse himself in the section on wages. While he talks about the economic construct of added value and the relative wages of western nation-backed sweatshops, he misses out on something very important: the only reason for a company to move the locations of the jobs it creates is because there is some kind of financial incentive to do so. What this means is that, while his notion of general protections against child labor are not illegitimate, there is no reason not to pressure western companies to use the financial portion of the incentive they get for moving their jobs to sweatshops to improve the working conditions in those same sweatshops, and to prohibit children from being forced into labor at their shops. If providing better conditions for their workers tips the balance of financial incentives in favor of moving jobs back to a country that has labor laws in place, that means that that should be done. Otherwise, companies are literally profiteering off of the suffering of their workers in third world or otherwise disadvantaged countries, which should come as no real surprise to anyone who has read much on the subject of sweatshops before.

Blog 11

Bhagwati’s Defending Sweatshops piece is definitely thought provoking. It made me realize a perspective that I hadn’t very much thought of in the past, that sweatshops might be a relatively “good thing”.  He argues that many people depend on this grueling work for their livelihood, and that trying to boycott large corporations that use these cheap goods may actually prove to destroy lives rather than help them.  This also goes back to what Bhagwati describes as using distance to makes oneself more comfortable with something they consider immoral.  Unfortunately, this distance also creates ignorance for someone that Bhagwati calls being on “moral high ground”. I have to agree with Bhagwati on both of his points. I would rather know that someone is working in grueling and possibly dangerous conditions than destroy their entire livelihood as a whole. It doesn’t mean that something can’t be done in an attempt to help improve the conditions of these sweatshops. I also think there are a lot of cases in which people will be affected by something immoral once the distance between said person and said immorality is removed. 

Sweatshops

             Any argument about sweatshops seems to mostly  favor opposing the existence of  sweatshops. While there are some arguments for sweatshops such as the workers will have to take a worse job or that it does provide cheap goods, i don't think that it justifies their existence. The argument that it does provide cheap goods is correct, but it still doesn't justify the existence of sweatshops. It seems disgusting to argue the value of a cheap commodity over the suffering of a human being, especially since sweatshops usually use unskilled labor and in some cases children. The argument that the workers in these shops would just have to find a worse job if the sweatshops were shut down also seems morally wrong. Just because they have been forced into a terrible position doesn't mean that they only have to take terrible options to fix it. While these people are definitely poor, sweatshops definitely don't seem like the proper answer. This argument seems to shift the blame from the consumers who continue to buy products that were produced in sweatshops to the people that were forced into the shops in order to feed themselves or their family. The idea that sweatshops are their fault is horrifying considering that the consumers are the ones that enable the sweatshops to exist. The consumers are only sacrificing some of their expendable income by not buying from sweatshops, while those that work in sweatshops are sacrificing a possible source of income for them and their family so it seems terrible to try to put the blame onto the workers. While the owners of these sweatshops are also to blame, I still think that the consumers of these goods are the ones main ones to blame.

Always the larger systems...

Is an argument that girls who aren't working in sweatshops would be sold to prostitution actually a moral argument? Likewise, is a few more pennies per day are a better wage than other jobs in developing countries better than the other opportunities a reason to morally accept sweatshops? On a day to day level for the people abject to these issues, these arguments may very well hold true. I am not objecting to that nor am I comfortable or accepting of these circumstances for other humans and the implications they have for further humans and our environment. I realize that I will not know what is like to have no other opportunities other than working in a sweat shop and possibly gaining a higher status, especially as a woman, rather than working within some family business with a risk of being sold as a sex slave (not to claim that this is the case for everywhere around the world, but is, from what I have read, a plausible experience). However, as someone who is relatively privileged in this world, who reaps the benefits of this exploitation with the ability to sit in my bed writing about said exploitations, I cannot be on board with the arguments raised in that article. Once again, I realize that there are issues within the system and ways of helping people within said intuitions but I do not morally condone them when wealthy corporations in developed countries go on deepening wealth inequalities. This is because, as I have said, I do not accept most arguments that come from within our current system of colonization and capitalism. I don’t have the answers, and cannot speak for anyone else, because I can’t tell who else wants an iPhone (but maybe that’s something we want to democratically decide on as worth to create?)? However, just because it is difficult to imagine a system that works counter to the one we are in—one where prostitution or complete poverty are the only other viable opportunities to sweat shops and child labor—does not mean that the systems do not need to be themselves questioned and changed.

Sweat Shops

Sweat shops seems like an inherently unethical practice. Perhaps what makes them so unethical is because of the conditions that the people work under. The one article mentioned that in poor countries, there will be poverty, there will be low wages. But, I think that there shouldn’t be the terrible conditions that they work in. The spotty electricity in the case of Meem, the lack of a comfortable working area, the complete inability for the factory to provide its workers with proper equipment… All of those are things that can be solved and perhaps by having these companies demand those standards they could receive more money from foreign purchasers.

My first thought on sweatshops, before even reading, was to eliminate them, eradicate them from the system and push the labor pack home. After reading the articles I’m rather hesitant. By providing these jobs, albeit shitty ones, it allows for some form of ‘wealth’ to those living on the state of poverty. It provides a means of meager social mobility. Obviously their own country is not helping them, monetary or working standard wise. The money that is coming into their country is valuable and they need every penny they can get – case and point the long hours many workers put in per month (only to receive $36).

I think that mainly people object to sweatshops for a couple reasons, one listed above and also the exploitation of the impoverished of a developing country and the high population of children in the system working. I don’t agree with the exploitation that the US instills every day – and honestly that seems to be a problem that the US needs to fix. If the US stops buying the commodities that these sweat shops are putting out – perhaps that would cause a lack in production and usage of sweat shops in general. However that could result in more financial problems for those working.

As for the children aspect of this argument, I relate these children – earning money for their families – like the children of the depression era. I think of children shining shoes for a living, only as one example. Perhaps that example is too much of a false analogy -  but when families are in desperate need of money to survive, they have to employ whatever they can.

Labor exploitation

As I sit here, attempting to write my post, I can't help but feel defeated. I've struggled with my view on many of the issues we talked about in class and I guess the readings for tomorrow have brought my feelings into perspective. We live in an awful society, a society which focuses on personal and economic gains instead of humanity. It is difficult to dissociate myself and my thoughts from this capitalistic system which has influenced my whole life, yet somehow, a part of me always struggled with what I see as a flawed system. I am discouraged with the trajectory of humanity.

We place more value on material things than on lives. This is why we see little girls and boys losing their childhood to buy TV's and hair clips. This economic system has created such an economic disparity that in order to have the opportunity of possibly experiencing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we must sell our lives to these systems of corporations. Its not even the case where few people must b e sacrificed for the greater good, instead we are sacrificing the greater good for a few. We no longer know how to experience the joy of humanity, we can only appreciate consumption. Our worth is based on what we own, not who we are.

Life should not be a game of roulette or lottery. Our paths should not be determined by where we are born. Perhaps this issue hits close to home because I could have easily been one of those children working 12 hour days for a couple of cents. These children are not granted the opportunity to dream big. Yet here I am at a liberal arts college pondering these issues.

Regarding the Foxconn issue, just because they have provided counseling and other incentives, does not hide the fact that they are exploiting people. The primary reason these individuals are suffering mental health issues is because they are no longer allowed to live and be humans. They are not respected, they are seen as disposable. We are not machines, we cannot function as machines. Yet, most Westerners are guilty of fueling these problems. I recently purchased an iPhone 6; for the longest I was boycotting Apple products because I did not agree with the exploitation of children mining the metals used in their phones. Babies are dying for our entertainment and technological advances. Part of me feels guilty for caving in, however in the society I live in, it has become essential to have a well functioning phone. Before this phone, I had a horrible one which made it difficult to communicate with others. If I want to progress, and hopefully work in a human rights field, I must have access to proper communication. It is a Catch 22.

I'm not sure if we can fix it or where we would even begin to. At this rate, we might as well substitute humanity for robots, since it seems to be all we value. If so, should we extend ethical issues to these robots? Or as we have discussed in class, should we not because there is something in just being a human that cannot be measured.

No Defense of Sweatshops

Bhagwati makes an argument for continuing to support companies like Walmart and Primark, and while it is attractive, it feels to me contradictory to the rest of his argument. To avoid a false analogy, I would say continuing to support Walmart is similar, but not exactly like, negotiating with terrorists. This country has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists because it only encourages awful acts of violence, and this same idea applies to the sweatshop situation. If consumers continue to buy goods from Walmart, the executives will not change anything. It’s fair to say that these companies have at least done something to address poverty in South East Asia. But they could be doing so much more. Now I understand very little about economics. Coming up with a reasonable living wage for these workers is difficult; who’s to know what’s appropriate. But a quick google search will tell you that the net worth of the CEO of Walmart is 19.7 billion US dollars. It’s fair to assume that there is some room for experimentation when it comes to determining what a living wage is for these workers. The hubris of these corporate executives combined with their complete disregard for the sanctity of the lives of their workers is appalling, and simply cannot stand. We cannot idly watch in complacency with these companies when their excess amount of profits is too much for the average person to even comprehend, or more than one person could ever hope to spend in a lifetime. I think when the personal accounts of the people who have had to work in the sweatshops are taken into consideration; there is no defense of the sweatshops. 

sweatshops

Connor Newlin

The last article by Bhagwati is the one that I found most interesting. He seems very quick to put down anti sweatshop movements because by saying protesting them will only make it worse. He says that not buying a companies product who uses sweatshops will only leave the workers jobless or forced into prostitution. People legitimately need these jobs to and need the small amount of money they receive to stay afloat so "freeing" them from these jobs will essentially toss them onto the street.  this makes sweatshops seem like a preferable alternative however we cannot deny that they are morally wrong even with the benefits they bring to wealthy economies. I agree that some young people are uninformed and act too rashly on the subject but I think that change can only come about from the governments of countries who look the other way when asked about sweatshops. I am not sure, as a foreign consumer, how much we can do about the sweatshops. Companies can stop using them but then they will find it hard to stay competitive with those who do use them. the only option it seems is reasonable from an economic and moral standpoint is to have governments crack down and install child labor and wage laws. this will force companies to pay a proper price for their products and of course they will lose profits in the short run, but in the long run, as businesses always do, they will find new ways to stay profitable.

Sweatshops

I think that the issue of sweatshops is one that i did not realize how big of an issue that it still is today.  I can not believe that there are still hundreds of thousands of kids who are pulled from school to word long hard days for the rest of their lives.  They know nothing beside the sweatshops and most stay there for their whole life.  It was heartbreaking to read the story of Meem and how she didn't even complain about anything because she was there to work.  She didn't even know that she was being taken advantage of.  The moral issue that i have the biggest problem with is that industries are worried that if they improve the working conditions, it is going to negatively affect themselves. I think that the working conditions should be improved regardless of if it negatively affects the industry.  I think that these conditions should have never gotten this bad in the first place, and we need to put the rights and safety of people before the production of the industry. However, i think that people are looking at this argument wrong.  Ideally it would have a positive effect on the industry and production because the people would be compelled to work harder because there are incentives and they are being treated well.  They would have the incentive to work hard because they know how bad things can be, and they would have better treatment than a lot of others.

Meem

After reading the article about Meem and the labors work she must do every day in the factory in India there were several things that stuck out in my mind. First I found it interesting how the government refuses to address this issue, just like they refused to address the issue of the woman sex slaves. Rather than attempting to put an end to this it seems as if they almost encourage it because looking at the bigger picture it does stimulate their economy. In the case of Meem she came across to me as having a very utilitarianism attitude, in the sense that she realizes what she is doing is hard work but it’s for the greater good, that greater good being her family. Yet, this raises my main concern that as a small child she should not have the responsibly of helping provide for her family, and at least if she must work she should be in control of the money she in earning, possibly she could put it towards education and a better life. Hearing that she has to give her whole pay check to her father and gets to buy a few hair clips and maybe ice cream is completely absurd. With proper education she would realize that what is happening to her is wrong. The argument can be made that this is her only choice but in reality there are other options. Rather than for fitting her entire paycheck she should attempt to keep a chunk of it in hopes of putting it towards education. Also the problem can be seen as a culture one, the article mentions how the girls working do not think that it is odd that they are not in school, rather then promoting work the parents should promote and education which in the end could have the possibility to yield higher rewards than a menial labor job.        

Sweatshops

It believe it is difficult for me to separate my objective and emotional feelings about sweatshops because of the society I was raised in.  In our society, children are not permitted to work below a certain age without being highly regulated by the government.  Technically these are also the laws in many of the countries that hold the most child labor.  People argue that it is inhumane and unfair to make children work in these unfair conditions however part of the reason these conditions occur is because of the illegality of the action.  Put more simply, because of the cultural norms of children working at a younger age, it might be helpful for the governments of these countries to reform their rules so conditions and habits of these workers and owners can be improved.  Because of the grueling conditions families in places such as Pakistan can find themselves, it is sometimes absolutely necessary for children to step up and help support their families.  Here in the United States we are lucky enough where this rarely happens because of the limitations and rules we already have in place.  This gives us a very one sided view of so called 'child labor.'  I started working at the age of 11 to support myself and my own horse.  Even though I was doing this extracurricular activity for a hobby, people still called my parents cruel for letting me work all day in the heat of the summers and six feet of snow in the winter.  It didn't matter what the elements were or how tired I was, they were my responsibility and I was to do the work until they were sufficiently taken care of.  I see it in somewhat of the same way for child labor; the children have a responsibility to their parents if they are going to live under their roof to help support themselves.  It is just a different expectation than privileged countries have so it seems very jarring to think about.

child labor.

Today in almost any third world country you are all but guaranteed to find some type of child laboring in a big time industry. One specific industry that was discussed in the article by Satyarthi was about the “export-oriented” industries mainly in India. There are over 1 million children who work to produce more than two thirds of the world’s carpet supply. The types of work environments that these children are working in usually tend to be extremely hazardous most of the time being exposed to deadly fumes, high temperatures, and other horrible things. If children chose to speak out on these conditions or work at all they are usually yelled at or severally beaten by their mother. Although there are laws in place in countries such as India and Pakistan very little is actually done to have these laws enforced. The article also states how child labor has tripled in the past fourteen years. In my opinion I think there are far more measures that governments in countries such as India or Pakistan can take to assure the safety of children. A few solutions that instantly come to my mind about this situation would be for the government to make it illegal for parents to send their children into these corporations as well as being punished to a very high extent. Another argument that can be brought up against the fight would be making education more accessible to poor people this may be a bit far fetched but I do think it can be a do-able task. People will realize the circumstances if educated about it.

Blog post 11

If you choose to post by Wednesday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about sweatshops, OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about sweatshops.

Blog post about the morality of organ selling

One of the Kantian arguments to Organ selling is that it interferes with one’s autonomy, namely the one who is selling their organ, and therefore it is not worth the good it produces, i.e. saving someone’s life who needed said organ. While I agree that it is harmful for a person to have his or her autonomy violated in the cases of coerced prostitution, I believe that one’s autonomy would not fully be defiled in the case of organ selling because of the check-ups to ensure that person’s health after the procedure. According Living Renal Transplantation very few people who donate kidney’s receive disease as a result, “Studies have repeatedly shown that the risk of developing end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was 03–0.05%17,18 and that survival of the donors who have been properly screened is similar, if not superior, compared with the general population.” This shows me that if organ selling is legitimately controlled and regulated by the government, as it is in Iran, the donor’s autonomy will not be violated. That being said, in order to preserve donors autonomy there must be adequate compensation and safe-guards put up to protect them. The black market, on the other hand, which just slices open the donors and gives them inadequate health-care and compensation, does violate the donors autonomy, which is what makes it morally wrong. 

A case for the legalization of organ selling

I find myself agreeing with the model that has been adopted in Iran. While I do think that selling body parts is not a proper way to make money, I think by implementing a system in which it is regulated would prove to have positive outcomes. By regulating the selling of organs, the amount of shady, illegal black market sales for would decrease. In the article about the selling of organs in Bangladesh, poor people were duped into believing they would be getting compensated by rich organ recipients for donating their money. They would encounter much additional suffering apart from the surgery, one donor accounts having to be circumcised before the surgery so the doctor would not notice that he and the organ-recipient weren’t actually “brothers”. The issue of diseased organs also arises with the sale of organs on the black market. It can be difficult to ensure that the donor would be receiving a diseased organ or one that could possibly not be a match.  Legalizing the sale of organs would also decrease the people who are waiting for an organ. According to the article by Ghods and Savaj, by implementing a system in which organ selling is legal and regulated, there is currently no waitlist for people in need of a kidney. If you look at the data for the past year, there are 90,000 people on the waiting list for a kidney. Only 17,000 people have received transplants. The majority of these transplants come from patients who are dead. Statistically, transplants from live donors are more successful than those from donors who are already dead. I personally would find it much easier to accept an organ donation from someone who willingly gave up their organ as opposed to someone who was listed as an organ donor and then died solely because the former willingly gave it up. I would find it extremely difficult to accept the fact that in order for me to live, someone else would have to die. 

Fallacy of equivocation or fundamental issue?

I think the issue I have with the idea of Living Unrelated Renal Donation (LURD) lies in potential perversion by making donation economic at all. My question for the authors of these articles would surround if buying and selling organs would create this corruption of the act of donating said organs in the first place. I understand the implications that the desired market is greater than altruistic donation allows for, but does that morally permit introducing an economic system to organ donation? The argument that there are a lot of benefits from introducing this kind of economic system seem to have Utilitarian ‘good for all’ bases and I think there is something lacking in terms of autonomy, or the importance placed onto a person’s physical body. Does the importance and autonomy of a person even extend to their physical body? If it does, why would it be any less significant to donate a kidney or liver, rather than to have sexual intercourse or commit suicide? Or am I committing the equivocation fallacy? I do think they attempt to defend the position of uninformed consent well. However I take issue with something potentially more fundamentally up for debate. 

Blog post 11

If you choose to post by Monday night by 11:00 PM, either (a) raise and develop an objection to some moral issue raised in the readings about organ selling , OR (b) offer and develop a supporting argument about some moral issue raised in the readings about organ selling.