For instance, if people fear going to hospitals, this is not a good thing, an ancillary result of the forced transplants. Therefore agent relativity such as Dr. Tooley's above becomes necessary. In this case, the philosopher compares the world with the transplant and without the transplant. Since it could be argued that the world might be worse with the transplants (for example, the reason stated above), then a utilitarian consequentialist using agent relativity could justify that their refusal to kill the donor to harvest the organs and letting the five patients die would be just ("Consequentialism," 2006). Although not addressed in this author's research on the topic, it would seem the above arguments with regard to the use of agent relativity might allow the forcible removal of a kidney or a lobe of the liver, since the possibilities of health complications are small for the donor.
To recap, this author found that utilitarian approaches to the controversial subject of organ donation fell into a few different categories. Firstly, we considered the question of organ donation from cadavers. Secondly, we...
In such a case, classical act utilitarianism had to be used to justify killing the owner to benefit several others whose lives would be saved with his or her organs. Classic utilitarianism is repugnant to most individuals in a classic Judeo-Christian society, so agent relativity in consequentialist utilitarian philosophy is usually a necessity. This author then speculated that agent relativity in consequentialist utilitarian philosophy might be used to justify forcibly taking an organ that does not cause the death of the donor (e.g., a kidney or part of a liver).
Works Cited
Consequentialism. (2006). Stanford encylopedia of philosophy. Retrieved March 12,
2011, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
Warner, Kaitlin. (2010, March 11). The organ donation debate. Retrieved from http://www.voxmagazine.com/stories/2010/03/11/organ-donation/
