By 2021 selling a kidney has become practically safe.
A person can calmly live with just one, meaning it's quite possible that sharing a "spare" kidney with a buddy who has none is a quite adequate idea.
Let's imagine the kidney transplant operation costs $100.
The one selling the kidney will get $1000.
Thus we have only pluses:
- the doctor will get $100 they wouldn't have gotten otherwise
- the donor got $1000 literally for nothing, living with one kidney is generally safe
- the buyer for $1100 will get rid of such a harmful thing as death
Everyone's good, nobody's bad?
From this description - yes, absolutely everyone involved is doing great.
Where's the flaw in this whole system? After all there really isn't anyone who became worse off from selling the kidney - why then is the operation illegal in most countries?
We forgot about one person who became worse off because of this whole system - the one who didn't sell their kidney and wasn't going to.
This person:
- didn't get $1000
- didn't become better than the person who didn't give a shit about health all their life and atoned for the sin for just $1100
- because of this feels worse than all the above listed and, in some sense, becomes poorer than all of them despite losing nothing
Thus understanding for whom kidney selling will be bad is practically impossible, because the human brain can't quickly remember the existence of third parties. All people participating in the transaction are good, so they're confident in their righteousness. However in reality this transaction has a huge long-term effect precisely on people who don't participate in the transaction, which is why it's in the interest of most people to make such operations at minimum illegal.
Same logic with selling light drugs.
They're safe. They help the buyer stop being sad. Help the seller avoid poverty.
Who's bad when everyone's good?
You, who doesn't participate in this.
What's bad about a weed dealer living in your building? That he gets rich and can buy more than you, thereby raising prices for everyone.
He doesn't pay taxes and doesn't improve life for the whole building, despite the fact that the whole building will deal with the results of his work.
What's bad about a weed buyer? That he won't buy your services - they're not that good. He devalues your work and your principles.
What's bad about a YouTuber who films degrading shit and advertises 1xbet?
He doesn't bother anyone, does what people want. There's demand, there's supply.
Degrading shit attracts masses. Masses attract advertisers - bad and good.
Bad advertisers pay big money. Big money makes the producer of degrading shit rich.
Rich producer of degrading shit consumes more and more degrading services and influences culture - he advertises a lifestyle accessible only to the unprincipled producer of degrading shit.
Who suffers? Producers of non-degrading non-shit.
They don't get enough audience attention. Because of this advertisers ignore them. Because of this they have no chance to expand their views on life, which are most likely much more productive than simple consumerism.
What's bad about a Czech immigrant who advertises GoStudy?
GoStudy gets more students and grows as a business. Probably will spend more money teaching new students.
The young praiser of shitty courses slightly improves their financial situation and tears less money from parents.
Who's bad when everyone's good?
Bad for those who don't participate in all this, i.e. 99% of all other Czech immigrants.
They don't get money for their alternative opinion, which isn't always worse than GoStudy's opinion about whether to learn language online and whether to go work at McDonald's right upon arrival.
99% of immigrants don't know that you can live at least somehow differently than shitty courses and employers advertise.
But you won't find out about this because you don't sell kidneys, don't deal weed and don't praise Czech language courses.
If there's any idea to take from here: a person should always have things that aren't measured by money.
Internal organs and moral principles are excellent candidates for saying - they're not for sale.
Giving a kidney to a friend, sharing some weed or changing your opinion about a problem under the influence of strong arguments should be legal and, ideally, should be encouraged by humanity.
Selling a kidney or opinion should be at minimum shameful, and ideally punished with a fine commensurate with the loss of certain monetary equivalent by the whole society.
this article was written as homework for macroeconomics, an essay on "are there those who are worse off from selling a kidney if the process is safe"