However, many people oppose the use of incentives, being they financial or of other kinds, in the field of organ donations, holding that it is not moral place any kind of economic value on a human organ or that organ donations should be an altruistic rather than an convenient choice. Many commentators hold that making organs an instrumental good by somehow compensating the donor is a morally reprehensible action, as every donation should be made out of generosity, it should be an altruistic gift. However, I do not see how such a weak argument could be considered more important than actually saving one person’s life, especially as this does not do harm to anybody. I believe that when it comes to saving a person’s life, we should not differentiate whether the organ is donated out of generosity or in exchange of something, because the final goal is to save a person’s life. Furthermore, when a person is waiting for an organ, that person would probably not care whether the organ is coming from a voluntary donation or from a paid one.
It lowers the potential of that person’s life as they look towards euthanasia as an escape plan. People should also not have the right to determine when they die, only God should. He alone determines when our lives start and end and we shouldn’t mess with that. These people should be able to live their lives to the absolute fullest just as God intended. A life is extremely valuable and we should try to live it as best as possible.
All things considered I have chosen the essay written by Diana George tittled “changing the face of poverty.” First and foremost there is an restraint of the endless controversy of poverty. Sadly as Diana Geroge dispute in her essay, the organization with the primitive purpose of abolishing global poverty are possibly the ones endowing to the very problem they battle against (George 676) Her main example wa habitat for humanity, she disputes that the organization is not sending very affective message and that they often fail to which I agree with 100%. The world assumes that they are doing more than what is actually being practiced. Furthermore George disclosed her disagreement concerning these issues. Basically she felt that all photographs that is revealed to the population pesonofi one frame of reference of poverty.
Why isn 't the theory realistic? Give an example as to why the theory is broken? The theory of utilitarianism does not consider justice for all. If we are only concerned with what 's right for the benefits of the majority, that means the minority will be left out. The theory is broken in regards to the example illustrated because most people would save their family member.
The ideas behind this moral distinction is that in passive euthanasia the doctors are not actively killing anyone but they are just not saving the patients. Most people think that euthanasia can be justifiable, when the patients are facing incurable disease, undergoing suffer, terminally ill and requests for euthanasia as their last wishes. For instance, Somerville (2010) argued that it is important to respect the people’s right of self-determination and autonomy. In other words, people should have the right to choose their time of dying but the state have prevented and stop them from doing it.
It is hard to trust someone who does provide good evidence for an argument. He also appeals to families by stating the affect a future without a majority of the world’s species could have on them, specifically their health. Michael Novacek produces a strong, reliable argument with all of this. While there are people who want to refute his point that the argument that the main culprit, global warming, is fake, Novacek still takes it upon himself to write this article. If he did not care enough, he would not have provided the information to possibly change minds and make a difference.
While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject. The point is never satisfactorily addressed elsewhere, making the counterargument
Controversial idea prohibit the selling of organs considering the negative effects in may have on the current market. If profit is made by selling organs, critics believe their will be a tyranny of murders to make money. This theory may not easily be solved but cautions and requirements may be made in order to make a profit on deceased bodies. A possible solution could be the requirement of hospitalization and investigation to know the individual died naturally or by means of an accident. There is no complete result of what may occur if organ marketing would be available but it should be the choice of said human to help supply themselves or their family with the income needed to
Singer’s Solution Good or Not? Who wouldn’t want to find a solution to end or reduce poverty in the world? A utilitarian philosopher, Peter Singer stated his own solution in his essay called “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”. Singer’s solution is simple: people shouldn’t be spend their money on luxuries, instead they should donate their money to overseas aid organizations. Peter uses two characters in his essay in hope to get to the hearts and minds of the people, and encourage them to donate.
If euthanasia is legalize, there might be a concern which poor patients and their family members refuse to accept treatment because of the high costing in order keeping them alive while the treatment will not guarantee that the patient will be cure. Therefore, some the them might choose to refuse treatment or even their family members do not want to spend the money on the treatment. Thus , legalize of euthanasia will serve death sentence to many disabled, elderly citizens and terminally ill patient and it might not their own will. 3.2 Euthanasia devalues human life It is one of reason why euthanasia should not be legalize. Proponents of euthanasia believe that it will do not degrades life for those who are suffering from incurable illness.
Conservatives want aid tied to work and it will be a difficult task to bring all groups together on this subject since the Republicans do not want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Not all U.S. Citizens or legal residents will be able to work due to physical or mental infirmities and Medicaid will continue to care for those people, however, able bodied people should be required to do some sort of work or service in exchange for aid. The aid should also be tied to drug screening and should result in the failure to receive aid if the recipient is found to be an illicit drug user. The mainstay of the reform should be that a person should strive to support themselves. Unauthorized immigration is a volatile subject currently in the news.
One claim against Singer’s argument for example would be, if I donated a portion of money to help people out in countries that are not as fortunate. How would me, this one particular person help make a big enough difference to help that vast number of people that are suffering out. Even if I gave a lot of money, goods, or materials one person can’t help billions of anguished people out. Although you would hope people would follow in suit with those actions, one can’t guarantee that people will pay it forward with good intentions. However just because other people aren’t going to help the deprived people, doesn’t mean one shouldn’t assist them.