Role Of Self Ownership In Michael Sandel's 'Justice'

The power that a person holds to owning one 's own body seems like common sense then and now. There were no laws specifically regarding one’s body, but soon there were ethical scenarios by famous philosophers would. For example, the case of the spare parts surgeon or involuntary organ donor by Phillipa Foot. Phillipa Foot introduced this in the 1960s, about a decade after Lacks’s death. Here is a basic summary of the scenario and the connection it has with the Henrietta Lacks’s case. The scenario starts with five patients needing organ transplants. One day, a healthy individual walks into the doctor’s office for a routine check-up, and during his check-up, everything comes out just fine. The doctor notices that he would be a perfect match for the five individuals needing organs. The doctor has the decision of harvesting the organs to save the lives of five people at the expanse of one. Should the doctor do this? No, would be the correct answer for the following reasons; one, the person may not be an organ donor and two, the doctor would be knowingly killing someone which that in itself is an unethical thing to do. This scenario can partially relate to Lacks’s case because the doctors took her cells without her consent, but by doing so, they helped save many other people’s lives. As Guido Calabresi from Yale Law School states in his article, “Do We Own Our Bodies?”:

The novel raises the reader’s awareness of tissue ownership: should people have ownership over their own tissue or not? If the tissue belongs to us, like how we own a car or how we own a house, we should be able to have a say in what is done with it and not have it taken without consent. People should have the right

There are diversified augments in favor of and against organ sales. I will focus on the arguments of Joanna MacKay from her essay “Organ Sales Will Save Lives” and R.R Kishore’s essay “Human Organs, Scarcities, and Sale: Morality Revisited”. MacKay argues in favor of organ trade legalization stating “government should not ban the sale of human organs; they should regulate it. Kishore argues against organ trade legalization stating “the integrity of the human body should never be subject to trade”.

“Organs” Satel insists, “are the rare trafficked good that saves lives.” ‘Yuan a Kidney?’ and ‘Financial Incentives for Organ Donation’ discuss opposing views of organ donation and trafficking. The National Kidney Foundation finds financial incentives for organ donation to be a form of exploitation, demeaning to society and all around unethical. Satel, however, holds a different perspective in the sense that if a citizen is informed and consenting to donating an organ to save another life for a monetary gain it could improve not only their welfare but the patient’s welfare as well. “Financial Incentives..” focuses strictly on a logical appeal; while “Yuan a Kidney?” is much more emotional while being logical. Satel provides the attention to donors as well as patients. NFK is speaking from a standpoint of legalities and ethics with no regards to donors as people willing to save a life, and little to patients in need of transplants.

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

Anywhere in the world, someone acquires something, whether it be money, a car, or even an idea. We can “own” many intangible and tangible items in life, but how does ownership relate to a sense and development of self? This question has been constantly answered for centuries through intelligent people like Plato, Aristotle, and Jean-Paul Sartre. However, the question has received no agreeable answer. In the end, people will agree that there is a strong and positive relationship between ownership and a sense of self because the things you own will define and develop who you are positively by exhibiting what you like, what you can and cannot do, and in the end, characterizes you, as long as you use the things you own properly.

“I think people are morally obligated to allow their bits and pieces to be used to advance knowledge to help others” (Korn). Different people have opposing opinions on the topic of whether or not patients or doctors own the body tissues after it’s been removed from the patient. Ownership is the act, state, or right of possessing something. Tissue ownership is different from ownership because once it leaves your body, you no longer own it. Contributing your tissues to the science world is superior because you can speed up medical advances, avoid litigation, and become a better individual by contributing to science and society.

Anywhere in the world, someone acquires something, whether it be money, a car, or even an idea. We can “own” many intangible and tangible items in life, but how does ownership relate to a sense of self? This question has been constantly answered for centuries through intelligent people like Plato, Aristotle, and Jean-Paul Sartre. However, the question has received no agreeable answer. In the end, people will agree that there is a strong and positive relationship between ownership and a sense of self because the things you own will define and develop who you are positively by exhibiting what you like, what you can and cannot do, and in the end, characterizes you, as long as you use the items you own properly.

First, the Christian Left’s rejection of free-market policies stems from the belief that the economic system promotes individuals to gain benefits at the expense of another. Furthermore, the demands of a free market can corrupt even a selfless individual by engendering an environment where one has no other choice but to be self-serving (Ewert, 1989). On the contrary, Ewert (1989), rebuttals their argument and argues that the free market promotes autonomous, not selfish, behavior and actions. Moreover, Ewert (1989), does not deny the fact that selfishness is present in the free market. However, greed can be found in every economic system because

“Autonomy is defined as self-determination and freedom from the control of others and making your life choices” (Morrison, 2011). The principle of autonomy holds that actions or practices tend to be right thus far as they respect or reflect the exercise of self-determination. “Persons and their actions are never fully autonomous, but nevertheless it is possible to recognize certain individuals and their decisions as more or less substantially autonomous” (Organ Procurement & Transplant Network, 2010). With the presentation of the principle of autonomy there are a few considerations such as, refusal of an organ and the right to do so, directed donation allocation, the processes of organ donation, and allocation rules that enable patients to make informed decisions.

Let image and put your self in a situation that you have a serious disease and your life depends on getting an organ such as kidney or liver, I ensure that you are willing to pay for one if you afford to do it. According to David Holcberg, “and if you could find a willing seller, should not you have the right to buy it from him or her”. In some extend, it is similar to a business or a contract, a person offer to buy something and someone can accept it, certainly both side have intention to do it. Everybody has the right to live and if they are not allowed to buy cure for their sickness, their right is forbidden, isn’t it? Desires to live is the nature of human being, in any circumstances, they still try to live. However when they are waiting for an organ for a long time and this demand is not satisfied so their only hope now is buying from other person and it seems to be too ruthless to forbid them to have the right to make a “contract” to buy a kidney or liver. As the result, if the market for human organs is legalized countless people would be saved and many individuals could have a better life. However, many people argue that it should not be done due to some ethical and social matters.

Ownership is the act and state of having something in control or possession. Aristotle claims that owning tangible objects help to build moral character, while Jean-Paul Sartre proposes that ownership extends beyond to include intangible things such as skill or knowledge. Different objects can have varying effects on the development of self identity, leading us to who we grow as a person. A sense of self can be a reflection to what we own, whether it is a tangible or not. Ownership of intangible and tangible objects play a vital role for the growth of self identity, as it teaches crucial morals in life to develop personal character.

“It is within my power to drastically change his circumstances, but I do not want to give that man a gift if he does not deserve it.” (Smith, 2008) In the movie seven pounds, the actor, made the choice to sacrifice his organs for the good, he felt that he had nothing else to live for, so instead he would give life to someone else who rightfully deserved it. For years, humans have voluntarily donated their organs to caring and loving individuals. They donated freely and without compensation they gave and expected nothing in return. Now, we have individuals who desire to impose upon this freedom, by offering the exchange of organs for money. The selling of organs for monetary value is wrong, it increases the amount of organ trafficking within the black market, it does not create a just weight for those with lower amounts of income, and it is not safe, many people will place their lives at risk all for just a dime.

For example, an unjust ruler would use his influence to give his friends a privileged status while a just ruler would abstain from doing that. In this case, the unjust ruler would receive praise while the just ruler would lose his friends. Without a doubt, skillfully implemented injustice can result in a lot of praise, power, and wealth. According to utilitarian ethics, injustice appears to be more profitable than justice because it leads to a better result for the individual. However, this is a misconception which needs to be corrected.

Selling organs is a rising problem in the healthcare community, government and morality. Organ sales has become the topic of discussion for numerous reasons. Some of which being lowering the wait time on the organ transplant waitlist and taking advantage of the financially disadvantaged. This issue affects many people on many different levels, some people morally or legally but mostly importantly medically. What this basically comes down to is: “Who are we to judge what people do with their bodies?”. The answer to this question lays in many different sources. The simplified answer is no we can not tell people what they can and can not tell other people what they can and can ot do with their bodies.