“It’s not just a matter of doctor’s motivations. It’s also that the doctors who’d save a patient hit by a cement truck aren’t the same ones who’d be looking for organs or even, likely, know about any particular patients needing organs.”
Not obvious to people who don’t know hospital departmental structure.
“And that matching organs takes care and is a little hard to do on the sly while trying to make it look like you’re making an effort to save the patient from injuries.”
Not obvious to people who don’t know how transplantation works- you can blame popular shows like House and soap operas for this.
“And that her concern wasn’t that she’d be butchered for any specific patients to whom her doctor was attached, but that she thought that they’d save the extra lives in strict consequentialist fashion if she had several organs that could each save a different recipient.”
She didn’t express this thought (at least not in your post), and I doubt she was thinking there was an actual calculation that her organs might save 6 people and 6 lives > 1 life, so much as fear that the hospital was already looking for donors, and voila, one pops up.
Said person might know more than she is considering and agree with you if you made these points, but she might be very ignorant, like most people.
Yes- which is exactly Alicorn’s point. If she had had more time, she could have persuaded the girl to carry on being a donor by pointing out these facts, but she didn’t, so she resorted to this ‘light art’.
Alicorn’s point seems to be that since she didn’t have time to explain everything to this woman, she used arguments “which use premises you don’t hold that your opponent does”, in order to persuade her that her POV was absurd. She says that even if we grant this woman the falsehood that doctors are consequentialists, the woman’s own reasoning will show that doctors will not sacrifice her for her organs, “as long as she can present proof to evil consequentialist doctors that she’s worth more alive than dead. And she can.”
I don’t see how someone can present this proof if she’s out cold, and I don’t think that the woman’s beliefs about organ donation are necessarily absurd unless you grant that she has a certain amount of factual knowledge about the process. I also don’t see how Alicorn’s joke would persuade anyone in this woman’s position that being an organ donor was safe, unless they actually believed that blood was a sufficiently valuable commodity that doctors would keep them alive in order to take it (this would involve a very large time horizon on the doctors part). As such, I don’t believe this anecdote was a very good illustration of the ‘light arts’ Alicorn was trying to advocate, though I would agree that her general point is valid.
“It’s not just a matter of doctor’s motivations. It’s also that the doctors who’d save a patient hit by a cement truck aren’t the same ones who’d be looking for organs or even, likely, know about any particular patients needing organs.”
Not obvious to people who don’t know hospital departmental structure.
“And that matching organs takes care and is a little hard to do on the sly while trying to make it look like you’re making an effort to save the patient from injuries.”
Not obvious to people who don’t know how transplantation works- you can blame popular shows like House and soap operas for this.
“And that her concern wasn’t that she’d be butchered for any specific patients to whom her doctor was attached, but that she thought that they’d save the extra lives in strict consequentialist fashion if she had several organs that could each save a different recipient.”
She didn’t express this thought (at least not in your post), and I doubt she was thinking there was an actual calculation that her organs might save 6 people and 6 lives > 1 life, so much as fear that the hospital was already looking for donors, and voila, one pops up.
Said person might know more than she is considering and agree with you if you made these points, but she might be very ignorant, like most people.
Yes- which is exactly Alicorn’s point. If she had had more time, she could have persuaded the girl to carry on being a donor by pointing out these facts, but she didn’t, so she resorted to this ‘light art’.
Alicorn’s point seems to be that since she didn’t have time to explain everything to this woman, she used arguments “which use premises you don’t hold that your opponent does”, in order to persuade her that her POV was absurd. She says that even if we grant this woman the falsehood that doctors are consequentialists, the woman’s own reasoning will show that doctors will not sacrifice her for her organs, “as long as she can present proof to evil consequentialist doctors that she’s worth more alive than dead. And she can.”
I don’t see how someone can present this proof if she’s out cold, and I don’t think that the woman’s beliefs about organ donation are necessarily absurd unless you grant that she has a certain amount of factual knowledge about the process. I also don’t see how Alicorn’s joke would persuade anyone in this woman’s position that being an organ donor was safe, unless they actually believed that blood was a sufficiently valuable commodity that doctors would keep them alive in order to take it (this would involve a very large time horizon on the doctors part). As such, I don’t believe this anecdote was a very good illustration of the ‘light arts’ Alicorn was trying to advocate, though I would agree that her general point is valid.
By—as I said—carrying a blood donor card. Card-carrying is also how they find out if you’re an organ donor.