Arguments for:
a. Helen is John's sister. Family members have special obligations to
each other.
b. If John donates his kidney, he will save Helen's life. He will give his
sister the most wonderful gift of all, the gift of life.
c. John can quite easily help his dying sister. Not to do so would be
-A wrong. Note that this is incompatible with b, which uses the analogy
of the “gift.” Failing to give a gift is not wrong, but giving one is
particularly good. Philosophers will point to the distinction between
obligatory acts (i.e., not doing them is morally wrong) and
supererogatoly acts (i.e., not doing them is not morally wrong, but
doing them is particularly laudable). So c is a much stronger version
than b. “
d. Donating the kidney will bring Helen and John closer together.
e. If John were in Helen's position, wouldn't he want her to donate her
V kidney? (Teachers could refer to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as
g you would have them do unto you.)
‘ f. A “virtuous” person would probably donate a kidney to a close
relative in need. .
Arguments against: _
a. The kidney is situated in John's body, which is his property. He
’ therefore has the right to decide what to do with it.
b. There is no obligation to a family member who is either not known by
or is greatly disliked by the potential donor. Therefore, in response to
“Helen is your sister," John could legitimately say, “So what?"
c. There is a low but real risk of death from an operation to remove
John's kidney. Therefore, John's concern is valid and should be
respected.
d. There is also the risk of living with only one kidney. What if John has
an accident or disease in the future which affects his one and only
kidney? Again, John's concern is a reasonable one and should be
respected.