Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephpmay | Hacker News Reader

At first look, from a Western perspective, this is 100% clear-cut morally bad.

But I've also learned a limited amount about the Chinese moral perspective in college, and it can be a useful exercise to examine how someone who doesn't have a Judeo-Christian/Locke moral framework may view this practice.

In some ways, the harvesting of organs from political prisoners can be viewed as the trolley problem. Killing one political prisoner (an 'undesirable' in Chinese society) could save a number of lives of upstanding citizens.

The practice disgusts me personally, but I can see a reasonable argument in support of it.

View on HN

You could take almost anyone, really. Just measure every citizen according to their contributions to society, and when four productive and useful citizens have need of a heart, a liver, two kidneys and a pancreas between them, just harvest a citizen that's not as productive as all of these four combined.

Of course, you maximize utility by choosing someone who does not contribute a lot to society, and _ideally_ someone who is a net negative. That's a win-win situation. The West is incredibly wasteful with our pie-in-the-sky dreamy research on artificial organs, when such a net positive solution is readily available.

It's frightening that a moral argument can be made along these lines. Does anyone really subscribe to this view? I am unfamiliar with Eastern philosophy, but this seems ludicrous.

> You could take almost anyone, really. Just measure every citizen according to their contributions to society, and when four productive and useful citizens have need of a heart, a liver, two kidneys and a pancreas between them, just harvest a citizen that's not as productive as all of these four combined.

On what basis do we determine who gets life-critical medical care?

Of course its "reasonable" to argue when you are on the receiving end of the organ donations and not the end being put to slaughter for parts.

This is just the extreme end of it though. All states ruled by those who don't believe in the value of human life irrespective of what value that life is to them is at least capable of such atrocity and at worst presently committing it.

From an Eastern perspective, this is 100% clear-cut morally bad too.

Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism would all say this is bad.

What’s going on here is not culture, but government.

I feel much the same way about forced labour in prisons, but, unfortunately, our courts have made numerous arguments (That they feel are quite reasonable) to support it.

"They shouldn't have become criminals." "They cost us money, make them earn their keep." "The constitution permits this." are examples of how we justify that bit of inhuman utilitarianism.

It's interesting; should humanity be abolished reason may lead to something terrible.

> At first look, from a Western perspective, this is 100% clear-cut morally bad.

There is no such thing as a western perspective or morals. Just like there is no such thing as an asian perspective or morals. The western, just like the asian or even chinese, perspective is so vast and disparate and diverse that it is futile to pigeonhole one region into a single perspective.

Case in point, the "west" encompasses everything from christian charity to nazism to black enslavement to native genocide. We aren't a monolith with one set of values. Never have been, never will be.

And if you think western perspective views this as 100% morally bad, then you haven't researched the history of western medicine.

> But I've also learned a limited amount about the Chinese moral perspective in college, and it can be a useful exercise to examine how someone who doesn't have a Judeo-Christian/Locke moral framework may view this practice.

There is no such thing as judeo-christian anything. The judeo and christian are morally antithetical. The basis of christ and christianity is the fundamental shift from judeo values and morals to christian ones. I grew up christian but am an atheist, but I cringe whenever people use "judeo-christian". Also, "judeo-christian" has nothing to do with Locke's philosophy.

> In some ways, the harvesting of organs from political prisoners can be viewed as the trolley problem. Killing one political prisoner (an 'undesirable' in Chinese society) could save a number of lives of upstanding citizens.

In the west, we call this utilitarianism. It isn't anything special to china. One of the most important thinkers in the past few hundred years ( john stuart mills) formulated the philosophy.

The problems with china isn't a "chinese" problem. It is a human problem. Whatever china is guilty of is what we all are or have been guilty of.

>The judeo and christian are morally antithetical. The basis of christ and christianity is the fundamental shift from judeo values and morals to christian ones.

I have Jewish friends, they are not morally antiethical to Christian values, they are moral people who I love.

Everything I know about Judaism informs me that its practioners share my morals.

Please state specifically where you believe the gap between Judaic morality and Christian morality lies?

Can you say why you cringe at the term Judaeo-Christian?

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2018/03/06/on-the-semiotics-o...

> term “Judeo-Christian” was coherent, useful, and defensible. In general, I take a very skeptical view of the term, because I think it misleads the public as to the nature of some important facts and dynamics in the history of the West.

Not the OP. The term Judaeo-Christian is dumb because it implies some kind of equality in the contribution of Jewish and Christian thought on morality and law in shaping the modern world and the world views of those living in Western society. It’s an American idea, a product of the post WWII consensus where the major religious traditions in the US had been operationally been Pritestantised[1]. In reality the contribution of specifically Jewish law or philosophy on the West rounds to zero. It’s certainly no more important than the Muslim contribution and few people talk about Abrahamic morality. Maimonides and Ibn Sina both made contributions to philosophy that are foundational, and situated from their culture. While many, many Jews have contributed to Western culture the fact that they are Jewish has no real impact on that influence. Spinoza’s philosophy shows vast intellect and voracious reading but Jewishness? Not so much.

[1]http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/08/29/we-are-all-protestants-no...

For the book length treatment read Protestant Catholic Jew, Will Herberg

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo36...

I have jewish, atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu, etc friends also. They are all moral people. So is it judeo-atheist-muslim-christian-buddhist-etc values?

There is no such thing as a judeo-christian morality or value. It is a political term invented a few decades ago for political reasons.

I don't want to get into a religious debate. Those never end well and there can never be a conclusion because they all hinge on interpreting text hundreds of pages long full of contradictory statements. And never mind there are different flavors of judaism and christianity.

But if judaism and christianity had same values then one is obviously redundant. But obviously that isn't true. There isn't even "judeo" values or christian values. The term "judeo-christian" is meaningless. There is no value, morality or anything underpinning it expect for political expediency.

One could say that the texts of a religion, such as the Bible in Christianity, do provide a general "moral framework" expected of its adherents. Many religions prescribe some sort of framework like this, as vague or as contradictory as it may be.

The idea of "sin" is huge in Abrahamic religion, so the fact that their texts particularly describe what is "sinful and not" I think is a clear-cut sign there is some sort of set of "values" that religious adherents are expected to have.

Not that I agree with said frameworks or give any authority to the texts- and also understand that many forms of these religions interpret the texts different ways, which cause various splits in what is considered moral or not. Additionally, I understand that it is mostly futile to expect most religious people to follow the prescribed morals of their religion or denomination, as it always seems to end up that people have their own specific personal set of morals, and then they just try to rationalize or stretch it to fit whatever religion or worldview they adhere to

Or is your point more that while religions DO have expectations like this- the moral "rules" of these religions don't originate from the religion itself, but instead are general moral values adopted, altered, or shared by many religions? If so, then maybe we are in agreement and I am talking past you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com