Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Poverty, Wealth - Coggle Diagram

- - - - economically viable
        
        It is difficult to see how regulation could prevent the kind of pressure in question, while still maintaining the organ supply. Suppose that a high minimum price for organs was set. This would prevent one sort of exploitation as everyone who sold an organ would be substantially compensated for it. However, this would do nothing to address the problem that some might sell their organs out of economic desperation, rather than out of a choice made free from external pressure.
      - … because people in poverty often find themselves either indebted or in need of cash to meet their own basic needs and those of their families, they would predictably find themselves faced with social or legal pressure to pay the bills by selling their organs, if selling organs were permitted. So we would harm people in poverty by introducing a legal market that would subject them to such pressures.
      - economically viable but ethically contentious - e.g. a prospective person can alleviate another person's poverty, but only at the expense of something that this other person must sacrifice such as an organ/family member
    - - To force someone to do something over their free will and desire would be deemed as coercive, especially if the person affected is impoverished themselves. Would it not lead to even further intrinsic hardship, making the instigator, seemingly initially innocent, at fault?
        
        As the expression 'an eye for an eye' provides a negative connotation on that force/coercion, no matter what the context may be, is not an acceptable solution to providing a sufficient humanitarian solution
  - - - In other words, being coercive brings about unjust poverty but being altruistic helps to alleviate poverty but is this something that we should take for granted?
        
        Coercion vs Altruism
        
        Obligatory altruism
        
        where there is a moral duty to help others
        
        e.g. If altruistic kidney donation were morally obligatory, then to demand money for one's organ (and, arguably, to accede to such a demand) would be wrong
        
        Supererogatory altruism
        
        morally good, but not morally required—going ‘above and beyond’ one's duty
        
        e.g. If altruistic donation were supererogatory, then to demand money for one's organ would not be wrong
        
        An altruistic person may think they are acting in this way but may cause more harm than good to the recipient or third parties involved
        
        An altruistic person may think they are acting in this way but actually may appear paternalistic; assuming the recipient would benefit from it without actually knowing it will help them or not