This study investigates whether a regulated market in human organs should be legalized. The main focus will be on the arguments given by philosophers James Stacey Taylor and Michael Sandel regarding the discussion of legalization. In addition to this it is analyzed and later concluded whether the term dignity can be a reasonable argument in the above mentioned discussion. The study examines dignity through an analysis of the term and how it is defined in four selected historical periods and its significance in the context of a regulated market in human organs. It is hereby concluded that it is somewhat impossible to provide a precise definition of dignity in modern society; hence it cannot be used in the discussion of whether a regulated market in human organs is morally permissible. Through an analysis and discussion of the aforementioned philosophers’ arguments, it is concluded that Taylor argues that a regulated market in human organs ought to be legalized. It is noted that Sandel does not explicitly discuss this particular subject, but instead focuses on the immoral factors of market transactions in general. It is therefore concluded that he would also find a regulated market in human organs to be immoral. The study finally concludes that the arguments given by Sandel are not reasonable and thus cannot be accepted in the review of whether or not a regulated market in human organs should be legalized. In contrast to this it is found that the arguments given by Taylor have defeated the challenges thrown at them. On account of the above it is concluded that a regulated market in human organs ought to be legalized and that it is a morally permissible decision.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Humanistisk Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||28 maj 2014|