|
Post by Synonym on Jul 14, 2010 10:12:08 GMT
Many consider it to be morally justified to commit violence against an attacking nation, including the 'collateral damage' of the death of it's innocent citizens that this will inevitably entail, on the grounds of self-defence.
Many consider it to be morally justified for a pregnant person to terminate the pregnancy, including after the 24-week limit, if it threatens their life - again on self-defence grounds.
How could one agree to the self-defence justifications for the above yet disagree that a person dying from kidney disease is morally justified in taking the kidney from a compatible but refusing donor, even though they are defending their own life even if it means 'collateral damage' for innocent parties? Is it possible to do so without an element of contradiction?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 14, 2010 16:56:00 GMT
...a person dying from kidney disease is morally justified in taking the kidney from a compatible but refusing donor... That might depend on whether the potential donor is dead and therefore has no possible further use for the kidney he has refused to donate, or whether it is being wrested against his will from his still living body. Which were you thinking of?
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jul 14, 2010 19:11:01 GMT
Either. We know that bombing a city or other strategic target will kill and main innocents, but as our goal is self-defence and this is a necessary evil in achieving that aim, it is considered justified.
|
|