I skimmed over this so I am unsure if this was addressed in the article: what if you donate an organ to an asshole? If they're weak or sickly, there is less chance of them being an asshole. However, a recovered and healthy asshole has relatively greater chance of subjecting the world to themselves.
The above may appear to be a crude (and maybe overly harsh and pessimistic) argument against organ donation, but I struggle with encouraging altruistic because some people suck and don't deserve your kindness. My question is this: does showing kindness to someone who is incapable of it themselves only perpetuate more unkindness? I worry that it does.
Some people suck. Some people need kidneys. Some people who need kidneys are people that suck.
I guess the answer to your question lies in whether you believe that humans are predisposed towards good or evil.
Evolutionarily the argument goes that humans are predisposed towards cooperation (i.e. good) which also seems to be backed up by archeological evidence (e.g. unremarkable individuals clearly being cared for up to old age despite evident disabilities or injuries that would have made them unable to contribute to the group's survival). Thus it seems that a general predisposition towards "evil" (for lack of a better word) is rare or otherwise the result of circumstances, socialization and socio-economics (e.g. living in a system incentivizing competition over cooperation).
On the other hand a devout Catholic would argue that man is inherently corrupt and sinful and requires deliberate salvation to become good. Or an economist might argue that a human is ideally a rational actor only interested in optimizing their own benefit (which most would probably characterize as "being a bit of a dick"). And then there's the old Greek dead guy's saying of "man is wolf to man" (i.e. people suck). And I'm sure depending on your life experiences and circumstances you have met plenty of people who suck as well.
Of course there's the odd chance that your act of kindness as a donor may change a person who suck's outlook on life and make them suck less rather than die as a miserable husk of a person. But that's just rolling the dice at that point so the question still remains.
> Evolutionarily the argument goes that humans are predisposed towards cooperation (i.e. good) which also seems to be backed up by archeological evidence (e.g. unremarkable individuals clearly being cared for up to old age despite evident disabilities or injuries that would have made them unable to contribute to the group's survival).
Animals developed cooperative behaviors because selective pressures rewarded the development of these behaviors for populations, but I don't think this helps us assume anything about one person's predisposition for cooperation. We can make assumptions about behavior for an individual on average based on their past actions and assumed personality characteristics. I'd like to believe that it means something to be human (ideologically, philosophically, morally, ethically etc.), but it's hard to judge what it means for other people or another person when their decision making is distorted by either past trauma or cognitive biases (I fall to this myself). Ideally, one should reciprocate the behavior one is afforded. But as you said, societal pressures sometimes do make good behavior harder to afford.
For organ donation most people donate organs because they want their death to mean something, or they do it while they're living because they make the assumption that they probably won't need two kidneys or a whole liver during the rest of their life (bad assumption given the standard American lifestyle and diet, maybe non-Americans might have better luck here). If they want to do it, whatever. For most people, a relatively healthy body and mind is their most useful asset..
I'll never encourage someone to donate organs while they're living, and even less after their death because they lose autonomy over their body. Why does post-death autonomy matter? For sentient, conscious and intelligent beings post-death autonomy is an extension of their pre-death conciousness. The rights of an individual don't and shouldn't end at their death, I think. If we don't help eachother in life and live selfishly, I don't see how and why death changes that? If the idea is that doing selfless deeds will beget more selflessness..um not in my experience, sadly. There's an entrenched individualistic tendency (almost bordering on solipsism) which often makes the receiver of the selfless deed believe that "they got something good because they're special", and not that someone else did something selfless. I think this individualistic tendency also prevents "passing it on", as you were hoping the receiver of a selfless deed might do. So I think for organ donation, if every reciever is automatically and irrevocably enrolled in organ donation themselves, then I wouldn't mind donating organs or encouraging other people to do it.
Do you think the average kindness of a person is positive? Or negative? If positive, and not knowing who your kidney is going to, donating a kidney is positive in expectation
I think the average kindness of a person depends on how much they can get away with without social, financial or legal repercussions. Maybe I am just pessimistic? Infosar as organ donation is concerned, I think it's nice to ask people to be considerate of each other and we should encourage that behavior. I am just saying that there are people who are abusive, opportunistic and uncaring. I don't like the idea of an altruistic person falling victim to that kind of person.
The above may appear to be a crude (and maybe overly harsh and pessimistic) argument against organ donation, but I struggle with encouraging altruistic because some people suck and don't deserve your kindness. My question is this: does showing kindness to someone who is incapable of it themselves only perpetuate more unkindness? I worry that it does.