What's your thoughts on being an organ donor?

[J’raxis 270145]

That seems to get down to semantical differences again. I define morality as those things things that allow for violent enforcement—that is, immoral acts are things that I not only consider to be wrong, disagreeable, &c., but those which permit force to be used in response. Things that one merely thinks are "wrong" but which don't permit enforcement don't rise to the level of morality—ethics, or personal preference, perhaps; "æsthetics" is what I've seen MaineShark use to describe this; &c..

[By the way, did you see my long post in reply to the "natural law and morals" thread? I went into some of this in detail in there.]

Those definitions in mind, I can't conclude that there are any positive obligations. People can't be told to do anything, only told to not do certain things (such as commit force or fraud).

[Caleb]

By that definition, then, it's all "aesthetics".  I don't like that term. It sounds like a word that goes better with art than with morality.

[J’raxis 270145]

By that definition, then, it's all "aesthetics".  I don't like that term. It sounds like a word that goes better with art than with morality.

I suppose if you use my definition of morality, and you're a pacifist, that's true, since I'm differentiating morality from everything else by where I accept the use of force. And as I've pointed out before, for me it all comes down to the Non-Aggression Principle, and only the use of defensive force, and perhaps force in order to collect restitution.

I can't speak for someone else, but I believe his use of the term æsthetics is because in its most general sense, the word just means what someone likes. The common usage of the term is for visual appeal, such as art, but it can mean simply what appeals to someone, period. After getting into these debates with people, and refining my own terminology, I decided to use preference for exactly that reason, that there's much less potential misunderstanding over what the word means.

[Raineyrocks]

...I don't want a rich person getting my organs unless it's his turn on the number sheet.  Plus I wonder if doctors would work as hard as they could to keep me alive, especially if there's some rich guy/girl waiting for an organ.

Just wanted to point out that the real evil here is political manipulation, which amounts to legitimized fraud.

In a world where there is no "government" tampering with the economy, hence no more colossal parasitic burden on productive businesspeople, wealth would increasingly trend toward those who earn it through outstanding efforts at creating and marketing genuine values for others. Likewise, in such a world, those who are chonically poor would be those who do not make good on their personal responsibility to cultivate competency at creating and marketing values for others.

It would only be fair, IMO, for those noble individuals who provide the rest of us with the greatest values, to be rewarded with priority when it comes to limited lifesaving resources. That is the justice inherent in the decentralized, spontaneous Free Market Civilization that I am working toward.

I understand most of your post except the last sentence in your 2nd paragraph so can you please put it simpler so I know what your trying to say?  No sarcasm here I just like to understand what somebody is talking about before I reply or think about it.
Okay and the third paragraph too, please?

Sure, no problem.

Bear with me, this is a lengthy post

There is nothing nobler than to identify, create, mass produce, and mass market solutions to life's problems -- which is precisely what every successful technological innovation is. This is what all the great innovators throughout history have done. They are by far the most noble -- in fact, heroic -- among us, for they are the ones exerting all the hard mental effort and discipline to take great ideas and transform them into mass marketed products and services that benefit their fellow humans immensely.

Note that there is a distinct difference between value creation and value production: Value creation involves innovation; value production merely copies what others have created. For example, Thomas Alva Edison created the incandescent light bulb; the folks who work at the factories of Sylvania and GE for a weekly paycheck merely produce what Edison created long ago. (By the way, TAE was my greatest childhood hero, and I continue to this day to hold him in high esteem for the tremendous improvements to our daily lives that he passed along to us. One small example: Imagine driving a car at night with only gas lanterns for headlights.)

While most people are content to hold low-effort jobs merely producing the high-effort creations of others, the innovators are the ones who consistently drive up the quality of life for everyone. In fact, the vast majority of individuals consume those goods and services without ever giving thought to the immense amount of sustained effort and discipline that went into creating those products and services in the first place, so they can be made available to them. That is NOT a fault, by the way: It is only natural to take these things for granted.

Mere producers are far nobler than someone who never aspires to anything at all -- say a hermit in the woods. While the hermit cannot be faulted, either -- as long as he harms no one -- there is nothing noble or heroic about him. He makes no effort to rise above just his very basic requirements, let alone reach for his highest potential as a human being. Not a fault, but nothing commendable, either. On the other hand, the most heroic (and rarest!) of all individuals are those who are not content to merely produce, but instead put forth the tremendous effort required to reach their absolute highest potentials and be the innovators, or creators, of competitive, marketable values for others to enjoy.

Since the creators' high-effort creations are so routinely taken for granted by the general populace, despite the far greater discipline and effort that those individuals exert, it is only fair that they become wealthy from the marketing of their creations, in direct proportion to the degree of value that they respectively create. It is their just reward, for being among those rarest and most valuable human beings who are willing to discipline themselves to reach for their highest potential, thereby improving the quality of life for all of us.

Enter the AMOG, with its immense burden of taxes extortion and regulatory hurdles, and its parasitic guns-and-fists enforcers. Here in our part of the world, and presumably across the globe, the AMOG is now plundering the heroic creator/entrepreneurs so excessively that there remains only a trace of incentive for them to 'reach for the stars' -- knowing the 'stars' will in turn be plucked from their hands by parasitic bullies who not only do not create nor produce anything of value -- they demonstrate contempt for those who do. In Atlas Shrugged, the creators "shrugged" (withdrew their beneficial values from the rest of the world) by retreating to a safe location. In the real world, no such safe location exists -- the "Atlases" of the world are compelled to choose between withdrawing their beneficial -- in fact indispensable -- influence entirely, or working forever as slaves to parasites who live off them while vilifying them.

For illustration, lets contrast the two "systems":

The AMOG increasingly penalizes the most heroic among us, thereby destroying the incentive to create (by default). The more you reach for your highest potential, the more the AMOG and their puppet MSM plunder and vilify you (using such derogatory terms as "robber baron", "filthy rich", "greedy businessman", etc.). The more you live as a monk or a hermit, the more they leave you alone.

Free Market Civilization, on the other hand, consistently increases the incentive to create. The more you reach for your highest potential, the more the market rewards you with wealth and esteem. The more one lives as a monk or a hermit, the more one gets left in the dust as the insignificant being one has chosen to be. Now that is justice.

Ironically, the terms "robber baron", "filthy rich", and "greedy businessman" are quite fitting for most of those who prosper in today's AMOG-controlled anti-civilization. In order to gain an advantage in a world dominated by filthy parasites, one must increasingly utilize the strong arm of the AMOG to bully and subdue one's competition. It is the aggression-based AMOG that enables greedy dog-eat-dog behavior -- NOT peaceful, competent capitalism.

...Likewise, in such a world, those who are chonically poor would be those who do not make good on their personal responsibility to cultivate competency at creating and marketing values for others.

Just want to point out that the personal responsibility I was referring to, is the responsibility to oneself to look out for one's own longterm well-being. If one does not make good on that responsibility, whether by choice or by default, it is absolutely nobody else's business.

In the ideal world, namely (AMOG-free) Free Market Civilization, the most rational approach to ensuring one's longterm well-being is to reach for one's highest potential, as a competent value creator. That requires consistent high-effort cultivation of discipline, thought, and practical skills.

It would only be fair, IMO, for those noble individuals who provide the rest of us with the greatest values, to be rewarded with priority when it comes to limited lifesaving resources. That is the justice inherent in the decentralized, spontaneous Free Market Civilization that I am working toward.

The inherent justice I speak of, is the fact that in an AMOG-free world, those who reach for their highest potential as human beings, by exerting the immense discipline and effort required to create and bring to market values that raise the quality of life for their peers, would thereby have the financial means to avail themselves of limited lifesaving resources. Those who do not care to reach for their highest potential, exercise that indifference at the ultimate risk of not being able to afford those limited resources when -- and if -- they need them.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that to me, I got it now!   Like how Tesla got ridiculed and ransacked for his brilliant inventive ideas to help his fellow mankind.  He's my favorite, by the way. 

Let's say though that your classification of a hermit or a mere laborer just doesn't have an inventive mind should he be denied an organ over someone that does or especially his child that may grow up to be another form of Thomas Edison?   I half agree with what your saying but it's hard to keep my heart out of it when your speaking in terms of logics and he who helps, deserves to live more.  Yet on the other hand why should the "crack head", (as an example), who doesn't respect his/her body deserve an organ over someone that takes care of themselves.  Is that what you mean?

I am going to give you +++++ every hour for explaining your original post to me the way you did!

[srqrebel]

I am going to give you +++++ every hour for explaining your original post to me the way you did!

...and here I was worried sick that I had buried you with words!

Sometimes it just seems impossible to explain something in a few short sentences.

[srqrebel]

Let's say though that your classification of a hermit or a mere laborer just doesn't have an inventive mind should he be denied an organ over someone that does or especially his child that may grow up to be another form of Thomas Edison?   I half agree with what your saying but it's hard to keep my heart out of it when your speaking in terms of logics and he who helps, deserves to live more.  Yet on the other hand why should the "crack head", (as an example), who doesn't respect his/her body deserve an organ over someone that takes care of themselves.  Is that what you mean?

The answer to that is rooted in property ownership: Whoever owns the property, holds the universal rights to that property, including the right to withhold it from anyone for any reason.

An organ donor, for instance, could specify that his organs are to be offered to the person most in need of them, rather than sold to the highest bidder. The contracted executor would be morally bound to administer the expressed wishes of the owner.

In the absence of such instructions from the organ donor, there is a high probability that (in a 100% free market environment) the organs would sell to the highest bidder.

The justice inherent in the Free Market system is not centrally dictated -- it is just the simple fact that, in a 100% free market environment, the more one cultivates personal competence at creating values for others, the greater the reward one reaps. That reward can be limited lifesaving resources, or anything else one desires.

[Raineyrocks]

I am going to give you +++++ every hour for explaining your original post to me the way you did!

...and here I was worried sick that I had buried you with words!

Sometimes it just seems impossible to explain something in a few short sentences.

Sometimes it takes that many words for me to understand some things.  

[Raineyrocks]

Let's say though that your classification of a hermit or a mere laborer just doesn't have an inventive mind should he be denied an organ over someone that does or especially his child that may grow up to be another form of Thomas Edison?   I half agree with what your saying but it's hard to keep my heart out of it when your speaking in terms of logics and he who helps, deserves to live more.  Yet on the other hand why should the "crack head", (as an example), who doesn't respect his/her body deserve an organ over someone that takes care of themselves.  Is that what you mean?

The answer to that is rooted in property ownership: Whoever owns the property, holds the universal rights to that property, including the right to withhold it from anyone for any reason.

An organ donor, for instance, could specify that his organs are to be offered to the person most in need of them, rather than sold to the highest bidder. The contracted executor would be morally bound to administer the expressed wishes of the owner.

In the absence of such instructions from the organ donor, there is a high probability that (in a 100% free market environment) the organs would sell to the highest bidder.

The justice inherent in the Free Market system is not centrally dictated -- it is just the simple fact that, in a 100% free market environment, the more one cultivates personal competence at creating values for others, the greater the reward one reaps. That reward can be limited lifesaving resources, or anything else one desires.

Oh, okay, I didn't know you could specify what organs could be offered to whomever the donor wanted, that makes me feel better.   If I still stay paranoid though, (which I probably will), and not have an "I'm a donor" written anywhere could Rick say that I want my organs to go to a poor person?

[Caleb]

I am going to give you +++++ every hour for explaining your original post to me the way you did!

...and here I was worried sick that I had buried you with words!

Sometimes it just seems impossible to explain something in a few short sentences.

Not you! 

[srqrebel]

Oh, okay, I didn't know you could specify what organs could be offered to whomever the donor wanted, that makes me feel better.   If I still stay paranoid though, (which I probably will), and not have an "I'm a donor" written anywhere could Rick say that I want my organs to go to a poor person?

Well, I was speaking from the perspective of a 100% free market environment... where there are no arbitrary, force-backed dictates of the AMOG.

I don't know how it works under the current system of laws. In a 100% free market environment, meaning the complete absence of the AMOG, your husband could morally execute your estate any way he sees fit -- as long as he does not contradict your known will.

Of course, the responsible thing is to make one's will known in advance.

As far as myself... I'm aiming for biological immortality

[Caleb]

I already am immortal.

[srqrebel]

I already am immortal.

Biologically?

---

Seriously, though... statements like that make me question your logic.

First of all, when I speak of biological immortality, I do not mean absolute zero possibility of death. In fact, accidental death will be around for a long, long time to come. By biological immortality I mean free of disease and aging -- the biological agents of death.

When you say that you are already immortal, I assume you mean in a metaphysical sense. Your statement is pretty unequivocal. Where is the empirical evidence to support it?

[Caleb]

Heat death might put an end to your biological existence.

Although I plan to extend my biological existence to around 120 years, but beyond that I think quality of life would go down so much that I'll probably get bored and move on.    I like it here, but I'm not a masochist.

[srqrebel]

I count myself among those who believe that ex nihilo positive obligations are the foundation for any intelligible morality. I think that people shy away from viewing such obligations as moral requirements because of the mistaken notion that there ought to be violent enforcement of moral precepts.

As I see it, volitional beings have two basic responsibilities: 1) Responsibility to themselves, to look out for their own longterm happiness and well-being, and 2) responsibility to others, not to harm them or their property.

The greater responsibility is to oneself. Under most conditions, the two responsibilities coexist in complete harmony. When someone inflicts actual harm upon oneself, however, the two responsibilities are forced into conflict -- in which case, the responsibility to oneself overrides the responsibility to others, until the conflict is resolved.

The part that is not commonly understood, is the fact that any perceived "positive obligations" arise out of the responsibility to oneself: The rational approach to securing one's longterm happiness and well-being involves producing and/or creating values for others. Those values include both tangible products and services, and intangible values such as friendship and romantic love. By making oneself increasingly valuable to others, one increasingly amasses power, wealth, moral support, etc. -- all of which enhance one's longterm happiness and well-being. When one fully grasps the implications of this, the question automatically becomes, "What steps can I take to maximize my value to others?"

The key word is "maximize": Consider, for instance, that one could donate a million dollars of inherited wealth to charitable causes, thereby delivering static value to a limited number of people. Or, one could invest the million dollars into creating, mass-producing, and mass-marketing advanced technology that delivers dynamic value to an unlimited number of people, by 1) Increasing the quality of life for everyone, and 2) Creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating the economy.

[Raineyrocks]

Oh, okay, I didn't know you could specify what organs could be offered to whomever the donor wanted, that makes me feel better.   If I still stay paranoid though, (which I probably will), and not have an "I'm a donor" written anywhere could Rick say that I want my organs to go to a poor person?

Well, I was speaking from the perspective of a 100% free market environment... where there are no arbitrary, force-backed dictates of the AMOG.

I don't know how it works under the current system of laws. In a 100% free market environment, meaning the complete absence of the AMOG, your husband could morally execute your estate any way he sees fit -- as long as he does not contradict your known will.

Of course, the responsible thing is to make one's will known in advance.

As far as myself... I'm aiming for biological immortality

Neato, how?