The man has done nothing admirable, either; he has taken money from the shareholders of the insurance company, and given it to charity. Presumably this is something the shareholders could have done themselves, if they chose to. So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act—he forced the shareholders to do something they didn’t want to do. Even though he did this through “voluntary” means.
This paragraph indicates that you believe that forcing people to do something they don’t want to do is wrong.
What he should have done was contingently committed to selling his organs on the black market before committing suicide. Then, there would have been a net benefit to his death, instead of it being zero-sum, and his actions would have been admirable.
This paragraph indicates that you believe it is morally beneficial to save lives—in this case, by donating organs.
Why is it that when these two moral principles contradict, you let the first one win?
This paragraph indicates that you believe that forcing people to do something they don’t want to do is wrong.
This paragraph indicates that you believe it is morally beneficial to save lives—in this case, by donating organs.
Why is it that when these two moral principles contradict, you let the first one win?