this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
75 points (100.0% liked)
Science
23819 readers
51 users here now
Welcome to Hexbear's science community!
Subscribe to see posts about research and scientific coverage of current events
No distasteful shitposting, pseudoscience, or COVID-19 misinformation.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.