Search results
Since no distinction can be made between selling and donating an organ as will be explained in the 1 Z. Alpinar-Şencan (&) Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zurich, Pestalozzistrasse 24, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: zumrut.alpinar@ethik.uzh.ch Kant’s principles encompass the duties towards one’s own body, and hence the ...
Dec 1, 2017 · The arguments against commodification of biomaterials and data explored are the Kantian approach argument as it relates to interference of commodification with human dignity which is linked to a ...
- Roberto Andorno
Jan 31, 2015 · Abstract. Referring to Kant's arguments addressing the moral relationship between our bodies and ourselves is quite common in contemporary debate about organ selling, although he does not provide ...
human organs, although he does not provide us with any specic arguments related to organ trade. It is widely argued that the most promising way to show the moral impermissibility of organ selling would be to argue within a Kantian framework. This paper will focus on the question of whether such arguments succeed.
- SOMETIMES MERELY AS A MEANS: WHY KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY REQUIRES THE LEGALIZATION OF KIDNEY SALES
- I. KANTIAN MORAL ARGUMENTS FOR PROHIBITING KIDNEY SALES
- C. Principles of Right and Kidney Purchases
- III. WHY KANT’S MORAL PHILOSOPHY CANNOT JUSTIFY PROHIBITIONS OF SALES
- IV. CONCLUSION
D. Robert MacDougall Running Head: Kant Requires the Legalization of Kidney Sales Several commentators have tried to ground legal prohibitions of kidney sales in some form of Kant’s moral arguments against such sales. This paper reconsiders this approach to justifying laws and policies in light of Kant’s approach to law in his political philosophy....
There is little doubt that Kant himself thought that it is morally impermissible to sell human body parts. Kant claims that one may not maim, dismember, or otherwise permanently alter one’s own body for any purpose other than to save one’s own life. A person is not permitted to sell a limb or even a finger (Kant 1 In this essay, I use “legal permis...
One might object at this point that even if persons have a right to do what they want with their kidneys, it has not yet been shown that there is a corresponding right to buy kidneys. Even if “sales” were technically licit, the state could perhaps impose restrictions on the purchase of kidneys. This is the approach of the Swedish government towards...
One might concede that Kant’s political philosophy does seem to require these conclusions about organ sales and contracts, but object on the grounds that one can hold Kant’s moral philosophy and still reject his political philosophy or actual political positions. While there is of course some truth to this—it would be a stretch to argue that the en...
The most plausible Kantian position, all things considered, is to permit the sale of organs through unenforceable contracts. This position is justified largely on the basis of Kant’s political, rather than moral, philosophy: but as I have argued, Kant’s approach to political philosophy develops in part from an awareness of the inherent limitations ...
- D Robert MacDougall
- 2019
This paper asks whether it is possible to argue coherently against organ selling in a Kantian framework and it will be shown that by mounting the argument on Kantian grounds no compelling argument can be given against sale of organs. Referring to Kant’s arguments addressing the moral relationship between our bodies and ourselves is quite common in contemporary debate about organ selling ...
Mar 1, 2016 · This paper asks whether it is possible to argue coherently against organ selling in a Kantian framework. It will be shown that by mounting the argument on Kantian grounds no compelling argument can be given against sale of organs, either because the arguments apply to donation of organs, too, or the arguments are not convincing for other independent reasons.
