1,720,989 research outputs found
Organhandel - Den moralske tilladelighed af nyresalg
No full textThe problem of insufficient procurement of organs, entails a problematic situation for people, who need an organ transplant. The aim of this project is to discuss whether a current-market in human kidneys should be allowed. This entails an argumentation analysis of James Stacey Taylor’s Stakes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts are Morally Imperative and Michael Sandel’s What Money can’t Buy- The Moral Limits of Markets. Utilising the method of reflective equilibrium to individually, discuss Taylor’s pro-market position and Sandel’s anti-market position, a comparison of the two positions is conducted. The project concludes that acting from a position, where respect for autonomy is prioritised, a current-market in human kidneys is morally acceptable. The worries of negative consequences for social cohesion, due to a commodification of kidneys are an empirical question, currently does not prove a moral impermissibility of a current-market in human kidneys. The problem of insufficient procurement of organs, entails a problematic situation for people, who need an organ transplant. The aim of this project is to discuss whether a current-market in human kidneys should be allowed. This entails an argumentation analysis of James Stacey Taylor’s Stakes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts are Morally Imperative and Michael Sandel’s What Money can’t Buy- The Moral Limits of Markets. Utilising the method of reflective equilibrium to individually, discuss Taylor’s pro-market position and Sandel’s anti-market position, a comparison of the two positions is conducted. The project concludes that acting from a position, where respect for autonomy is prioritised, a current-market in human kidneys is morally acceptable. The worries of negative consequences for social cohesion, due to a commodification of kidneys are an empirical question, currently does not prove a moral impermissibility of a current-market in human kidneys.
Moral Bioenhancement - focusing on freedom, autonomy, emotions and authenticity
No full textAbstractThis study investigates arguments for and against moral bioenhancement with focus on the themes freedom, autonomy, emotions and authenticity. The purpose of the paper is to examine the arguments put forth in various scholarly articles on the subject in order to determine whether it would be ethically permissible to use biomedical means of improving human morals, and under which circumstances it may or may not be. Through the reconstructions of the arguments presented in the selected articles we analyse, discuss and compare the arguments in order to determine which argument is the stronger one. The result of our analysis is that it seems unlikely that we will be able to make broad statements of the permissibility of moral bioenhancement. The debate must be focused on a) specific types of moral bioenhancement and b) specific situations in which moral bioenhancement can be used. We can, however, conclude that concerns of authenticity and emotions in connection to moral bioenhancement do not seem to be valid grounds for abandoning the use of moral bioenhancement, while concerns of freedoms and autonomy may be, depending on the level of importance is put on these values as opposed to values of security and general well-being.<br/
Behandlingsturisme: Organhandel
No full textThis study investigates whether a regulated market in human organs should be legalized. The main focus will be on the arguments given by philosophers James Stacey Taylor and Michael Sandel regarding the discussion of legalization. In addition to this it is analyzed and later concluded whether the term dignity can be a reasonable argument in the above mentioned discussion. The study examines dignity through an analysis of the term and how it is defined in four selected historical periods and its significance in the context of a regulated market in human organs. It is hereby concluded that it is somewhat impossible to provide a precise definition of dignity in modern society; hence it cannot be used in the discussion of whether a regulated market in human organs is morally permissible. Through an analysis and discussion of the aforementioned philosophers’ arguments, it is concluded that Taylor argues that a regulated market in human organs ought to be legalized. It is noted that Sandel does not explicitly discuss this particular subject, but instead focuses on the immoral factors of market transactions in general. It is therefore concluded that he would also find a regulated market in human organs to be immoral. The study finally concludes that the arguments given by Sandel are not reasonable and thus cannot be accepted in the review of whether or not a regulated market in human organs should be legalized. In contrast to this it is found that the arguments given by Taylor have defeated the challenges thrown at them. On account of the above it is concluded that a regulated market in human organs ought to be legalized and that it is a morally permissible decision.This study investigates whether a regulated market in human organs should be legalized. The main focus will be on the arguments given by philosophers James Stacey Taylor and Michael Sandel regarding the discussion of legalization. In addition to this it is analyzed and later concluded whether the term dignity can be a reasonable argument in the above mentioned discussion. The study examines dignity through an analysis of the term and how it is defined in four selected historical periods and its significance in the context of a regulated market in human organs. It is hereby concluded that it is somewhat impossible to provide a precise definition of dignity in modern society; hence it cannot be used in the discussion of whether a regulated market in human organs is morally permissible. Through an analysis and discussion of the aforementioned philosophers’ arguments, it is concluded that Taylor argues that a regulated market in human organs ought to be legalized. It is noted that Sandel does not explicitly discuss this particular subject, but instead focuses on the immoral factors of market transactions in general. It is therefore concluded that he would also find a regulated market in human organs to be immoral. The study finally concludes that the arguments given by Sandel are not reasonable and thus cannot be accepted in the review of whether or not a regulated market in human organs should be legalized. In contrast to this it is found that the arguments given by Taylor have defeated the challenges thrown at them. On account of the above it is concluded that a regulated market in human organs ought to be legalized and that it is a morally permissible decision
- …
