Mandatory Organ Donation

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Xeio » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

So because something bad might happen we have to ignore the benefits of something beneficial, with essentially no downsides*?

*With regards to opt-out that is, mandatory is probably less arguable there

StevenR
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:36 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby StevenR » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

When it comes to the state exercising any power at all, we should be extremely careful because A) there are always unintended consequences and B) the rights of the individual often get trampled in the name of the "greater good."

My body is my own, not the government's to do with as some beuraucrat sees fit. The government can encourage donation all they want, but when it says I will donate unless I go out of my way to opt out, they have gone too far. Do what you like with your own body parts, but don't be telling me what I must do with mine.

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Goplat » Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:42 am UTC

StevenR wrote:My body is my own, not the government's to do with as some beuraucrat sees fit. The government can encourage donation all they want, but when it says I will donate unless I go out of my way to opt out, they have gone too far.

One could just as easily say: "The government can discourage donation all they want, but when it says I won't donate unless I go out of my way to opt in, they have gone too far." Since what happens after your death has nothing to do with your quality of life while you're still alive, there's no inherent reason to the potential donor why any option should require more explicit consent than another.

Since we have to pick a default option, it should be the one that saves others' lives rather than unnecessarily leaves them to die.

User avatar
Plasma Mongoose
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 1:09 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Plasma Mongoose » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:33 am UTC

Unfortunately in Australia, a lot of people seem to find the idea of 'opt-out' organ donor laws too controversial.

A shame really.
A virus walks into a bar, the bartender says "We don't serve viruses in here".
The virus replaces the bartender and says "Now we do!"

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Xeio » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:03 pm UTC

StevenR wrote:The government can encourage donation all they want, but when it says I will donate unless I go out of my way to opt out, they have gone too far. Do what you like with your own body parts, but don't be telling me what I must do with mine.
Have you read this topic at all? There is no "out of the way". It would work exactly the same as it currently does, you still don't get default opted-in until you fill out the forms as normal at the DMV. You have to do this even if you don't opt-in currently.

And, as said, again, nobody is forcing you to not opt-out. You have just as much choice as you did previously...

User avatar
the classy corsair
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:12 am UTC
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby the classy corsair » Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:45 pm UTC

I totally agree with opt-out instead of opt-in.

That being said...I think it should still be required to verify that they have in fact been given an opportunity to opt-out.

Like...when you go to the DMV for your license...you have to opt-out, and if they cannot verify that you have not, they cannot harvest.

You'd still get more harvesting, which is good.

Definitely in support of it, just have to be sure not to accidentally harvest someone who didn't want it or can't be identified.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby thc » Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:47 pm UTC

the classy corsair wrote:I totally agree with opt-out instead of opt-in.

That being said...I think it should still be required to verify that they have in fact been given an opportunity to opt-out.

Like...when you go to the DMV for your license...you have to opt-out, and if they cannot verify that you have not, they cannot harvest.

Um.. what you just described is opt-in.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:58 am UTC

thc wrote:
the classy corsair wrote:I totally agree with opt-out instead of opt-in.

That being said...I think it should still be required to verify that they have in fact been given an opportunity to opt-out.

Like...when you go to the DMV for your license...you have to opt-out, and if they cannot verify that you have not, they cannot harvest.

Um.. what you just described is opt-in.


I think he means if they find someone about to die in a car crash, but can't find proof they are a donor they can't harvest.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby thc » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:30 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
thc wrote:
the classy corsair wrote:I totally agree with opt-out instead of opt-in.

That being said...I think it should still be required to verify that they have in fact been given an opportunity to opt-out.

Like...when you go to the DMV for your license...you have to opt-out, and if they cannot verify that you have not, they cannot harvest.

Um.. what you just described is opt-in.


I think he means if they find someone about to die in a car crash, but can't find proof they are a donor they can't harvest.

Re-read what you wrote: Like...when you go to the DMV for your license...you have to [....], and if they cannot verify that you have [...], they cannot harvest.

Fill in the blank with what makes the most sense:
A) Opt-out
B) Opt-in

I'm not sure why you think renaming opt-in as opt-out is any improvement at all. The whole advantage of opt-out is that people are too lazy/don't care enough to perform any action that prevents their organs from being harvested when thye are dead.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:46 am UTC

thc wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
thc wrote:
the classy corsair wrote:I totally agree with opt-out instead of opt-in.

That being said...I think it should still be required to verify that they have in fact been given an opportunity to opt-out.

Like...when you go to the DMV for your license...you have to opt-out, and if they cannot verify that you have not, they cannot harvest.

Um.. what you just described is opt-in.


I think he means if they find someone about to die in a car crash, but can't find proof they are a donor they can't harvest.

Re-read what you wrote: Like...when you go to the DMV for your license...you have to [....], and if they cannot verify that you have [...], they cannot harvest.

Fill in the blank with what makes the most sense:
A) Opt-out
B) Opt-in

I'm not sure why you think renaming opt-in as opt-out is any improvement at all. The whole advantage of opt-out is that people are too lazy/don't care enough to perform any action that prevents their organs from being harvested when thye are dead.



That's possible, I read it as an opt out system with paperwork, but proof of not having opted out would have to be present before harvesting(as in a car crash with no id). Guess we'll wait for original poster.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby cphite » Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

Goplat wrote:
StevenR wrote:My body is my own, not the government's to do with as some beuraucrat sees fit. The government can encourage donation all they want, but when it says I will donate unless I go out of my way to opt out, they have gone too far.

One could just as easily say: "The government can discourage donation all they want, but when it says I won't donate unless I go out of my way to opt in, they have gone too far." Since what happens after your death has nothing to do with your quality of life while you're still alive, there's no inherent reason to the potential donor why any option should require more explicit consent than another.


Actually, there is. Our bodies are our own. That is the default position. We shouldn't need to sign something to assert what should be a basic human right.

And yes, my right to control what happens to my body - even after death - trumps your right to live if it's based on harvesting parts of my body. If I choose to donate organs (and I do, but that isn't the point) then that is my choice to make. It's not your choice, and not the governments choice.

Since we have to pick a default option, it should be the one that saves others' lives rather than unnecessarily leaves them to die.


No; it should be the one that preserves the most basic and fundamental of human rights.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby DSenette » Tue Jul 19, 2011 6:40 pm UTC

and when you die, all of your possessions, monetary wealth, social security, 401k, etc.. etc.. etc.. should go to the poorest people, even if your family is in need. because the poorer people need your stuff more than your poor family.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Jul 19, 2011 7:21 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:and when you die, all of your possessions, monetary wealth, social security, 401k, etc.. etc.. etc.. should go to the poorest people, even if your family is in need. because the poorer people need your stuff more than your poor family.


I know you are being facetious here, and this might be a topic for another thread, but this is actually probably a very good idea from a social justice point of view. Inherited/unearned wealth perpetuates privilege and social stratification. If you didn't care enough to help out your poor family when you were alive, why should they have first right to your possessions when you are dead?

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Goplat » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:48 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Actually, there is. Our bodies are our own. That is the default position. We shouldn't need to sign something to assert what should be a basic human right.
How is having your body remain intact forever after death a "basic human right"?

Until modern times that kind of extravagance was only afforded to Egyptian pharaohs. Ordinary people just had their bodies buried and left for the worms.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby DSenette » Tue Jul 19, 2011 8:56 pm UTC

Goplat wrote:
cphite wrote:Actually, there is. Our bodies are our own. That is the default position. We shouldn't need to sign something to assert what should be a basic human right.
How is having your body remain intact forever after death a "basic human right"?

Until modern times that kind of extravagance was only afforded to Egyptian pharaohs. Ordinary people just had their bodies buried and left for the worms.

the basic human right is to be able to decide what to do with your body for yourself, not for your body to never decay.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

Goplat
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:41 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Goplat » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:39 pm UTC

DSenette wrote:the basic human right is to be able to decide what to do with your body for yourself
Even if we accept this as a right, that doesn't say why no organ donation can be the default, but organ donation can't. If the right applies only to people who have actually expressed their preferences, then either opt-in or opt-out satisfies it.

If the right applies even to people who did not express their preferences, then both opt-in and opt-out violate the right - in fact, it's impossible for society NOT to violate the right in that case, unless we invent a time machine and telepathy so we can go back to before someone's death and determine whether he/she wanted to donate or not even though he/she refuses to actually state a preference.

KittenKaboodle
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby KittenKaboodle » Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:47 am UTC

DSenette wrote:and when you die, all of your possessions, monetary wealth, social security, 401k, etc.. etc.. etc.. should go to the poorest people, even if your family is in need. because the poorer people need your stuff more than your poor family.


Ok, that answers a question I had. Since my understading is that organ transpalnts are a rather costly procedure, and health care resouces are finite, I was wondering just how true the claim that mandatory organ donation would "save lives" was on the whole*. But if we size rich peoples assets to pay for poor peoples health care then maybe it will work out ok. However that does make this discusion irrealvant in the USA as that will never ever happen.

I was temped to ask why even wait for people to die as far as non-corperal possessions are concered, but then i remembered that Forbes says China** has about 115 Billionares, so I probably have no idea how communisim works.


* it would be a red herring to bring up the UINCEF adds that say 20,000 children die every day, but I guess I just did.
**Actualy a lot of the Billionares seem to be in Hong Kong, but some are in "China"

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:02 am UTC

KittenKaboodle wrote:
DSenette wrote:and when you die, all of your possessions, monetary wealth, social security, 401k, etc.. etc.. etc.. should go to the poorest people, even if your family is in need. because the poorer people need your stuff more than your poor family.


Ok, that answers a question I had. Since my understading is that organ transpalnts are a rather costly procedure, and health care resouces are finite, I was wondering just how true the claim that mandatory organ donation would "save lives" was on the whole*. But if we size rich peoples assets to pay for poor peoples health care then maybe it will work out ok. However that does make this discusion irrealvant in the USA as that will never ever happen.

I was temped to ask why even wait for people to die as far as non-corperal possessions are concered, but then i remembered that Forbes says China** has about 115 Billionares, so I probably have no idea how communisim works.


* it would be a red herring to bring up the UINCEF adds that say 20,000 children die every day, but I guess I just did.
**Actualy a lot of the Billionares seem to be in Hong Kong, but some are in "China"


China is communist much like how Britain is a hereditary monarchy. It may be strictly true, but in practical terms, the countries operate very differently from their official designation.

christ0r
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:36 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby christ0r » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:41 am UTC

Is there any good reason why the next of kin of the individuals concerned shouldn't decide?

They after all are the ones affected by the decisions.

(In fact, rather relevantly, objections from family members were the reason why, having opted into organ donation, I then proceeded to opt out. Doesn't affect me either way and the thought of my relations suffering was a reasonable enough tipping point).

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Xeio » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:24 pm UTC

Why should next of kin decide anything if the person decided before they die?

Czhorat
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby Czhorat » Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:34 pm UTC

From the anti-opt-out crowd, I'm having trouble seeing any argument against donation aside from "I don' t want to". I'd be fine with mandatory posthumous donation (I don't see dead people as having any rights), but think that opt-out, rather than opt-in, would certainly increase the availability of organs. If those who have some inexplicable reason to want their organs to not be donated still have the right to stop it, then all we're changing is having the organs of people who haven't thought about it enough to make their wishes known. Given the fact that they are, by definition, dead at the time the organs will be taken I really fail to understand the controversy.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Jul 20, 2011 5:00 pm UTC

christ0r wrote:Is there any good reason why the next of kin of the individuals concerned shouldn't decide?
By the time you find next of kin, the most valuable organs will have already gone bad.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby cphite » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:30 pm UTC

Goplat wrote:
cphite wrote:Actually, there is. Our bodies are our own. That is the default position. We shouldn't need to sign something to assert what should be a basic human right.
How is having your body remain intact forever after death a "basic human right"?


Nobody said anything about having ones body remain intact forever. The point is, it is a basic human right to have control over ones own body. If I want my body used for organs, that is my choice to make. On the other hand, if I want my body burned, buried, or dropped into the sea; that is also my choice to make. It's not your choice, or the governments choice.

If you want more people donating organs, then take it upon yourself to convince more people to make that choice.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:37 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Goplat wrote:
cphite wrote:Actually, there is. Our bodies are our own. That is the default position. We shouldn't need to sign something to assert what should be a basic human right.
How is having your body remain intact forever after death a "basic human right"?


Nobody said anything about having ones body remain intact forever. The point is, it is a basic human right to have control over ones own body. If I want my body used for organs, that is my choice to make. On the other hand, if I want my body burned, buried, or dropped into the sea; that is also my choice to make. It's not your choice, or the governments choice.

If you want more people donating organs, then take it upon yourself to convince more people to make that choice.


Right to bodily autonomy only extends to the living; the dead have no rights.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby DSenette » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:43 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
cphite wrote:
Goplat wrote:
cphite wrote:Actually, there is. Our bodies are our own. That is the default position. We shouldn't need to sign something to assert what should be a basic human right.
How is having your body remain intact forever after death a "basic human right"?


Nobody said anything about having ones body remain intact forever. The point is, it is a basic human right to have control over ones own body. If I want my body used for organs, that is my choice to make. On the other hand, if I want my body burned, buried, or dropped into the sea; that is also my choice to make. It's not your choice, or the governments choice.

If you want more people donating organs, then take it upon yourself to convince more people to make that choice.


Right to bodily autonomy only extends to the living; the dead have no rights.

no, but on the condition of death, the default shouldn't be "you didn't explicitly state you didn't want x, y, and z to occur so....free science buffet!"
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby cphite » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:48 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
DSenette wrote:and when you die, all of your possessions, monetary wealth, social security, 401k, etc.. etc.. etc.. should go to the poorest people, even if your family is in need. because the poorer people need your stuff more than your poor family.


I know you are being facetious here, and this might be a topic for another thread, but this is actually probably a very good idea from a social justice point of view.


How does stealing from one family to give to another equate to social justice? If I have worked my entire life to provide for my family, then I should expect what I've worked for to actually go to my family. What makes this hypothetical poorer family more deserving of the things I've worked for all my life?

Maybe this other family is poorer than mine because none of them got off their asses and worked? If that's the case, how is it "social justice" for them to suddenly be handed what someone else has earned? And, what incentive do they have to actually get off their asses under your proposed system of just waiting for someone who's doing better than them to die?

Inherited/unearned wealth perpetuates privilege and social stratification.


Unearned distribution perpetuates social stagnation. What incentive is there to work hard and actually make something of oneself when you can count on getting what someone else earned if you just wait a while?

If you didn't care enough to help out your poor family when you were alive, why should they have first right to your possessions when you are dead?


How does being poor equate to not caring about your family? And if it does, then doesn't that imply that the poorer family cares even less?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:30 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Unearned distribution perpetuates social stagnation. What incentive is there to work hard and actually make something of oneself when you can count on getting what someone else earned if you just wait a while?


Meritocracy is a myth. How successful you are is determined almost exclusively by how successful your parents were. If you were born into a middle-class family, chances are very good that you will be middle-class. If you were born into an affluent family, chances are you will be affluent. If you were born into a very poor family, chances are you will remain very poor. There are some outliers, of course, but social mobility in either direction is in fact very limited. Wealth redistribution and government spending tend to promote social mobility rather than suppress it. The question is not what makes some hypothetical family more deserving, the question is why you think that you "earned" or "deserve" these things yourself. The only reason you have them, by and large, is because of where you ended up with the birth lottery; your intrinsic abilities or lack thereof have very little to do with it.

If you want to go into more detail, I suggest we start another thread or continue via PM. This will derail this thread very quickly IMHO.

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby thc » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:13 am UTC

That's simply not true. Children whose parents are in the top quintile are least likely to be as rich as their parents. And a large number of them will fall into the bottom quintile. Children of parents who are in the bottom quintile are very unlikely to be as poor as their parents. There are certainly problems with inequality and income gap, but mobility isn't the whole story.

Also, don't conflate mobility with meritocracy. In fact, it's possible that the very reason the U.S. lags behind in mobility is because it is more meritocratic. E.g., the rich give their children a better environment to grow and learn in, which equips them with more skills needed in the work place. If that's the case, the solution isn't to simply redistribute wealth, but to redistribute skills by providing better access to education. Simply taking money from dead people and giving money to everyone in the same amount is not going to provide an equal opportunity and is certainly not meritocratic.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:42 am UTC

thc wrote:That's simply not true. Children whose parents are in the top quintile are least likely to be as rich as their parents. And a large number of them will fall into the bottom quintile. Children of parents who are in the bottom quintile are very unlikely to be as poor as their parents. There are certainly problems with inequality and income gap, but mobility isn't the whole story.


Uh, no. According to this (see Table 3 on page 14), if your parents are in the top quintile, the probability if you ending up in the top quintile is ~40%. The probability of ending up in the bottom quintile is 6%. If your parents were born in the bottom quintile, the probability of ending up in the bottom quintile yourself is also ~40%. The probability of going from the bottom quintile to the top quintile is ~1%. The correlation between parental income and child's income for the country as a whole is about 0.5 (Figure 2 on page 7). Parental income is in fact one of the best predictors of a person's future economic prospects (Tables 5, 6, 7).

thc wrote:Also, don't conflate mobility with meritocracy. In fact, it's possible that the very reason the U.S. lags behind in mobility is because it is more meritocratic. E.g., the rich give their children a better environment to grow and learn in, which equips them with more skills needed in the work place. If that's the case, the solution isn't to simply redistribute wealth, but to redistribute skills by providing better access to education. Simply taking money from dead people and giving money to everyone in the same amount is not going to provide an equal opportunity and is certainly not meritocratic.


This isn't meritocracy. This is class privilege. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. If you have a huge advantage due to your class (or race, gender, whatever), then it isn't meritocratic--the reason that you're more successful has less to do with your personal qualities and more to do with the advantages conferred by upbringing. If one child is going to the best schools, getting personalized tutoring, has wealthy enough parents not to have to worry about basic needs, has an automatic network of similar upper class people to associate with, and her parents buy her a house when she moves out, she is more likely to be successful than a child going to ghetto schools, with absent parents, who has to start working very young to help provide for the family, and who knows more people who have gone to prison than have gone to college. However, her "success" is not based on merit (mostly). If their positions were reversed, there is no reason to believe that she would still end up wealthy and her counterpart would end up poor. Put it this way: Suppose you and I are going to run a marathon. I get to start the race at the 25th mile, and you start at the first mile. Also, you have to carry a backpack full of bricks. If I beat you in the race, does that mean that I am a better runner than you?

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:18 am UTC

This isn't meritocracy. This is class privilege. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. If you have a huge advantage due to your class (or race, gender, whatever), then it isn't meritocratic--the reason that you're more successful has less to do with your personal qualities and more to do with the advantages conferred by upbringing. If one child is going to the best schools, getting personalized tutoring, has wealthy enough parents not to have to worry about basic needs, has an automatic network of similar upper class people to associate with, and her parents buy her a house when she moves out, she is more likely to be successful than a child going to ghetto schools, with absent parents, who has to start working very young to help provide for the family, and who knows more people who have gone to prison than have gone to college. However, her "success" is not based on merit (mostly). If their positions were reversed, there is no reason to believe that she would still end up wealthy and her counterpart would end up poor. Put it this way: Suppose you and I are going to run a marathon. I get to start the race at the 25th mile, and you start at the first mile. Also, you have to carry a backpack full of bricks. If I beat you in the race, does that mean that I am a better runner than you?


Last time I checked; meritocracy didn't mean a system where people with the best innate qualifications are selected. So whiles its unfair to a certain* degree; the fact that rich children will end up better off doesn't mean people of inferior merit are being assigned higher positions; it just means that we can do a good job of predicting who will end up with the most merit.

*weird lacking in language; I don't know a simpler way of saying something has a property to a degree which I don't wish to quantify.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:04 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
This isn't meritocracy. This is class privilege. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. If you have a huge advantage due to your class (or race, gender, whatever), then it isn't meritocratic--the reason that you're more successful has less to do with your personal qualities and more to do with the advantages conferred by upbringing. If one child is going to the best schools, getting personalized tutoring, has wealthy enough parents not to have to worry about basic needs, has an automatic network of similar upper class people to associate with, and her parents buy her a house when she moves out, she is more likely to be successful than a child going to ghetto schools, with absent parents, who has to start working very young to help provide for the family, and who knows more people who have gone to prison than have gone to college. However, her "success" is not based on merit (mostly). If their positions were reversed, there is no reason to believe that she would still end up wealthy and her counterpart would end up poor. Put it this way: Suppose you and I are going to run a marathon. I get to start the race at the 25th mile, and you start at the first mile. Also, you have to carry a backpack full of bricks. If I beat you in the race, does that mean that I am a better runner than you?


Last time I checked; meritocracy didn't mean a system where people with the best innate qualifications are selected.


That's pretty much the definition of meritocracy.

Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations.

[...]

Meritocracy in its wider sense can be any general act of judgment upon the basis of people's various demonstrated merits; such acts are frequently described in sociology and psychology. Thus, the merits may extend beyond intelligence and education to any mental or physical talent or to work ethic.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:45 am UTC

Spoiler:
LaserGuy wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
This isn't meritocracy. This is class privilege. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. If you have a huge advantage due to your class (or race, gender, whatever), then it isn't meritocratic--the reason that you're more successful has less to do with your personal qualities and more to do with the advantages conferred by upbringing. If one child is going to the best schools, getting personalized tutoring, has wealthy enough parents not to have to worry about basic needs, has an automatic network of similar upper class people to associate with, and her parents buy her a house when she moves out, she is more likely to be successful than a child going to ghetto schools, with absent parents, who has to start working very young to help provide for the family, and who knows more people who have gone to prison than have gone to college. However, her "success" is not based on merit (mostly). If their positions were reversed, there is no reason to believe that she would still end up wealthy and her counterpart would end up poor. Put it this way: Suppose you and I are going to run a marathon. I get to start the race at the 25th mile, and you start at the first mile. Also, you have to carry a backpack full of bricks. If I beat you in the race, does that mean that I am a better runner than you?


Last time I checked; meritocracy didn't mean a system where people with the best innate qualifications are selected.


That's pretty much the definition of meritocracy.

Meritocracy, in the first, most administrative sense, is a system of government or other administration (such as business administration) wherein appointments are made and responsibilities are assigned to individuals based upon their "merits", namely intelligence, credentials, and education,[1] determined through evaluations or examinations.

[...]

Meritocracy in its wider sense can be any general act of judgment upon the basis of people's various demonstrated merits; such acts are frequently described in sociology and psychology. Thus, the merits may extend beyond intelligence and education to any mental or physical talent or to work ethic.


inate. Hiring the most talented researches doesn't mean hiring the people who were at birth the best candidates to be future researchers.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

FNMatt
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:37 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby FNMatt » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:11 am UTC

Wasn't someone talking about organ donations?

But really, at least in SC, you have to opt-in, but it's not like you have to do any lengthy paperwork if you have a Drivers License. If you get a license, you have to either check yes or no. Its not a major issue, as few adults do not have a drivers licenses, nothing to get strung out about. Iit would be fair to not allow or place low priority on organ donations for those who chose not to be organ donors. If it's creepy, against your religion, etc to give an organ, shouldn't you also deny a donated organ?

User avatar
thc
Posts: 643
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:01 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby thc » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:06 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Uh, no. According to this (see Table 3 on page 14), if your parents are in the top quintile, the probability if you ending up in the top quintile is ~40%. The probability of ending up in the bottom quintile is 6%. If your parents were born in the bottom quintile, the probability of ending up in the bottom quintile yourself is also ~40%. The probability of going from the bottom quintile to the top quintile is ~1%. The correlation between parental income and child's income for the country as a whole is about 0.5 (Figure 2 on page 7). Parental income is in fact one of the best predictors of a person's future economic prospects (Tables 5, 6, 7).

Those figures you just cited support exactly what I said, and do not support what you said earlier:

You: "There are some outliers, of course, but social mobility in either direction is in fact very limited." 60% not remaining in the top quintile are not "outliers."

There is social mobility in the U.S. It may not be as much as you want it to be, but it is in no way, as you say, "very limited", it is in fact, quite significant.
This isn't meritocracy. This is class privilege. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. If you have a huge advantage due to your class (or race, gender, whatever), then it isn't meritocratic--the reason that you're more successful has less to do with your personal qualities and more to do with the advantages conferred by upbringing.

Meritocracy means that people are rewarded "based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth." (MW) There is no mention of innate. It quite clearly does NOT take into consideration how those abilities and talents arose, only the abilities and talents themselves. IF those abilities arose solely due to your more privileged upbringing? A meritocratic society would support that. That just means meritocracy and privilege aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - a meritocratic society can still be one with a privileged class of people. Is that fair? I think that's debatable and not necessarily an either-or debate. It does, however, remind me of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2195#comic

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Jul 25, 2011 8:06 am UTC

thc wrote:Meritocracy means that people are rewarded "based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth." (MW) There is no mention of innate. It quite clearly does NOT take into consideration how those abilities and talents arose, only the abilities and talents themselves. IF those abilities arose solely due to your more privileged upbringing? A meritocratic society would support that. That just means meritocracy and privilege aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - a meritocratic society can still be one with a privileged class of people. Is that fair? I think that's debatable and not necessarily an either-or debate. It does, however, remind me of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2195#comic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/talent wrote:tal·ent (tlnt)
n.
1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. See Synonyms at ability.
2.
a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
b. A person or group of people having such ability: The company makes good use of its talent.
3. A variable unit of weight and money used in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle East.
And ability and talent that comes from class privilege or wealth would seem to run counter to the 'rather than on class privilege or wealth' part.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:51 pm UTC

thc wrote:
This isn't meritocracy. This is class privilege. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. Meritocratic means that you are getting by based on your own abilities. If you have a huge advantage due to your class (or race, gender, whatever), then it isn't meritocratic--the reason that you're more successful has less to do with your personal qualities and more to do with the advantages conferred by upbringing.


Meritocracy means that people are rewarded "based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth." (MW) There is no mention of innate. It quite clearly does NOT take into consideration how those abilities and talents arose, only the abilities and talents themselves. IF those abilities arose solely due to your more privileged upbringing? A meritocratic society would support that. That just means meritocracy and privilege aren't necessarily mutually exclusive - a meritocratic society can still be one with a privileged class of people. Is that fair? I think that's debatable and not necessarily an either-or debate. It does, however, remind me of this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2195#comic


You contradict yourself. You claim that:

1) Meritocracy rewards people based on ability and talent.
2) Meritocracy does not reward people based on privilege or wealth
3) Abilities and talents may come from privilege or wealth.

From 1) and 3):
4) Meritocracy may reward people based on privilege or wealth.

Which contradicts premise 2).

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby mmmcannibalism » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:17 pm UTC

You contradict yourself. You claim that:

1) Meritocracy rewards people based on ability and talent.
2) Meritocracy does not reward people based on privilege or wealth
3) Abilities and talents may come from privilege or wealth.

From 1) and 3):
4) Meritocracy may reward people based on privilege or wealth.

Which contradicts premise 2).


Meritocracy doesn't care why you have ability, just that you have it. Children of rich parents tending to do better is different then children being automatically better off because of their parents.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:27 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
You contradict yourself. You claim that:

1) Meritocracy rewards people based on ability and talent.
2) Meritocracy does not reward people based on privilege or wealth
3) Abilities and talents may come from privilege or wealth.

From 1) and 3):
4) Meritocracy may reward people based on privilege or wealth.

Which contradicts premise 2).


Meritocracy doesn't care why you have ability, just that you have it. Children of rich parents tending to do better is different then children being automatically better off because of their parents.


If that is the case, that simply means that premise 2) is the one that is false. Meritocracy does in fact reward people based on privilege and wealth, as well as based on ability and talent, because ability and talent can be derived from/cultivated by privilege/wealth.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:20 pm UTC

So, meritocracy == aristocracy. Yai newspeak!
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

cephron
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Mandatory Organ Donation

Postby cephron » Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:35 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:If that is the case, that simply means that premise 2) is the one that is false. Meritocracy does in fact reward people based on privilege and wealth, as well as based on ability and talent, because ability and talent can be derived from/cultivated by privilege/wealth.


Come on, this one's easy.

Based on the three premises, meritocracy does not reward people based on privilege or wealth. There's nothing to stop it from rewarding people who happen to have privelege and wealth, but it doesn't reward them based on that. Just because someone can derive ability/talent from privelege/wealth doesn't mean they will, and meritocracy (according to the definition) will not reward those who don't.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests