Why should a theist have a problem with this? I'm one but I have no problem with it. Is it playing god somehow? — Raymond
1. Yes, it's in our best interest to prolong the life of the latter man. It's a simple answer, but the reality is much more complicated. There are millions of ways to challenge this answer by introducing new variables to the equation.
2. You should refer to the existing clinical and ethical guidelines for organ transplantation. The problem of morality of organ transplantations is relatively old and incredibly complex. Luckily for us, there are guidelines that have been developed through extensive time and effort. It's very difficult to challenge them in a way that they haven't been challenged already.
I'll offer an answer that I personally find satisfactory. Why not give both men a new heart? It seems like the novelty of the transplantation described in the OP is that we can genetically modify pig hearts and offer them to the people who otherwise wouldn't receive a hearth. Sounds like a win for everyone. We should celebrate this. — pfirefry
I am essentially asking if the elements of ones past and history where they have demonstrated to be indifferent, or at least, disinterested in preserving the well-being of others, should be taken into account when giving someone an organ transplant, that may prolong their life further, when there are demonstrably better candidates to pick, but may not be "next in line". — Cobra
The prolonging of their life isn't so much interesting, but instead the decision to select over another, and whether or not that is the best one to make.
Should these then be elements be taken into account, when selecting recipients of organ transplants? — Cobra
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.