It's an arbitrary "eye for an eye" framing of a very specific antisocial choice that doesn't even need to exist in society. I would encourage you to also see their later reply (the most recent at time of writing) to understand where this is coming from.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

from a view from nowhere policy point of view i think it's reasonable to prioritize registered donors over non-donors. no moralism about it.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

The only serious response is that it shouldn't be a choice and you will be donating organs if they are viable. You are sacrificing lives (from the undonated organs) for the benefit of fucking people over (the non-donors) as being worth less. So yes, it functionally is moralism because you're setting up a system to be more punitive while undermining its actual efficacy in helping people.

Also, since we can't have a view from nowhere, I really need to stress that there's more specific social salience to this attitude and why he chose to mention the specific things he did. Surely this contrapasso nonsense is not actually the most salient thing to worry about with the issue of how to handle people not wanting to donate their organs.

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 1 points 20 hours ago

You are sacrificing lives (from the undonated organs) for the benefit of fucking people over (the non-donors) as being worth les

wait, do you think there's some surplus of organs available? there's a massive shortage

of course it should be opt-out rather than opt in, but if you opt out (or under the current american system, don't opt-in) being at the bottom of the list means being at the bottom of the list, not off the list. under no framework would we trash a liver because the only recipient is a clown or selfish prick, they can still have it as long as the queue is empty of prosocial recipients.