It varies from person to person in a similar way to people with allergies. Some people are allergic to dust and not to pollen. Some people have asthmatic reactions to cigarette smoke and not to car exhaust.

The slightest hint of cigarette smoke causes me to sneeze uncontrollably (the last time my dad smoked when I was around, I smoked about 5 times in 20 seconds).

I wasn't aware of a term differentiating the two, but you can't really say that Einstein's pick of a delicious pancreas couldn't be rule utilitarianism. People make a law to ban smoking in public places and beaches, because it brings about the greatest good of less littering and the tourism value of smug anti-smoking rallies. Having a cleaner environment is considered moral. Though I don't know how utilitarians define morality (which is the basis of your argument, methinks), Einstein had a bigger impact on the happiness and well-being of the world than any meager peasant, and had greater potential to make incredible discoveries and further the fields of physics, which benefits everyone. It would be not desirable and even immoral to deny him life and prevent people from enjoying the outcomes of his mental labor, while many people produce nothing for society, so if he's dying of a preventable disease, he should be able to have his pick of organs. Much like smoking being illegal in public places, any legislator could say that it's illegal to deny someone of great worth the best of medical treatment, because they both benefit society and can be done "morally".




This guy would have killed Einstein.

I'm going out for a smoke and then some beers with my main man, Einstein.




Alrighty. I suppose the best justification for this law would be the unborn and children.
So what exactly happens during an asthma attack? I saw one when I was five years old but the kid had an inhaler so only two or three people noticed. Can it vary in severity and have people died from them?

This post was edited by general_patton on Feb 2 2011 07:17pm

Sigh...

But you're not understanding. In order for Einstein to get his pancreas, there would have to be a general rule, i.e. people who are "more important" or something of the sort are allowed to take the organs of those who are "lower than them". And clearly you should be able to see what kind of unhappiness and chaos that would cause in our society today; just think about how many lower-class people would suffer just thinking about how they may be used as a sacrifice for someone greater than them. It would create even more harm, because it would violate the sanctity of human rights, and even many upper-class citizens would be thoroughly disgusted.

Your argument is, at best, looking at society in a vacuum. A society where one could have their organs removed at any time is clearly one with a low average utility. That is the primary issue, even if one were to accept your incorrect equation that saving 5 lives is worth sacrificing one.

There's always been class disparity, and this happens already. More specifically, rich and powerful people game the system for organs and get them. Steve Jobs didn't die of liver failure because he was a billionaire and could get on several states' waiting lists and could shop criteria, despite his cancer history. I don't see massive civil uprisings or disgust as a result of this.
I was sorta being facetious about harvesting underlings for organs, but the current voluntary organ donation after death system would work fine for Einstein.

As I recall, it's illegal to be able to get ahead on organ donation waiting lists simply because of money. But people with money can get away with all kinds of unlawful things; this isn't any different. Money=power=ability to do and get away with more things.

Put simply, an environmental irritant causes a person to be unable to breathe. Essentially during an asthma attack, the various pathways in your lungs inflame and close off. I think bronchioles can also fill with mucus, which prevents the exchange of oxygen between the lungs and the blood stream.

It's an extremely manageable disease nowadays, but there are still about 5000 Americans that die annually from it.

Utilitarianism takes into account civil rights...anyone who has read Mill knows this.

However, obviously the utilitarian argument held up for the smoking ban in indoor public places (bars, etc)...so why doesn't it hold here?

The slippery slope argument goes both ways here.

If the danger to others (and infringement on their liberty) was to a certain degree enough to have smoking banned in indoor places, but it's not as dangerous when you're outside, but still in a public place, where do you draw the line?

One could argue that to suggest that the level of harm caused (and liberty infringed upon) is less so outside is rather arbitrary...it still causes harm (disutility), but at lower amount.

I'm not suggesting we make smoking out right illegal, but smokers should be prevented from causing other people harm and infringing on other people's liberty.

I can't remember if you're in favor of gay marriage, Santara, but I sincerely hope you are.