You Can't Sell Your Ass or Your Heart

Recently, in a post on prostitution, I challenged readers to name another activity that would otherwise be legal but is made illegal simply by virtue of money being exchanged in the process. Although I couldn't think of anything, my old friend from high school, Kim, pointed out, quite correctly, that it is perfectly legal to donate your organs but illegal to sell them.

Here is my question. Is a legal prohibition against selling your organs a good idea or a bad one?

Right now, there are more than 105,000 people in the US waiting for organ donations. This waiting list increases by approximately 300 people each month. There are between 70 and 80 organ transplants performed each month. 17-18 people per day die due to not having organs available for transplantation.

What if the OPTN Organ Procurement and Transplant Network), which is the agency that currently oversees organ donation and transplants, paid donors a predetermined price for their organs? With some organs, like the liver and kidney, this could be done while the person is alive and well and the donor could use the money from these as he or she sees fit. In the case of a deceased donor, the money that is generated by selling any viable tissues could go into the decedent's estate and could be used to settle any outstanding debts, with the remainder going to his or her heirs. These organs would then go to a donor based upon the same criteria that are now used, which are; tissue match, blood type, length of time on waiting list, immune status, distance between the potential recipient and the donor, and the degree of medical urgency (for heart, liver, lung and intestines).

The reason that I say that a “predetermined price” should be paid for organs is to avoid a situation in which a person would agree to sell organs to the highest bidder. Selling organs eBay-style would create an exploitative scenario in which wealthy people would have access to transplantable organs while those of lesser means would not. However, a well-regulated and equitable system of payment and organ distribution might help to narrow the gap between those who need organs and those who have them but might not otherwise be inclined to donate them. Knowing that when you die your organs may be donated to a person in need is reason enough for many people to fill out the donor card at the DMV (or BMV in Indiana...always have to be different don't you?). For some though, this idea is too abstract to move them to become a prospective donor. Maybe if they knew that, in addition to the abstract idea that donating an organ would help someone that they don't know live a longer and healthier life, knowing that their spouse or children might benefit from their donation would make them more inclined to donate.

Either way, I hope that you have made the decision to donate your organs in the event of your death. Let's hear your thoughts and ideas.

Problem Of Evil Challenge

In early October, my girlfriend, Nicole, our downstairs neighbor, Suzanne, and I attended a debate between University of North Carolina Religious Studies Professor and bestselling author Bart Ehrman and conservative speaker cum erstwhile Christian apologist, Dinesh D'Souza, focusing on The Problem of Evil. This debate has raged for years (centuries) but I walked away with an idea that I think might be a debate killer on this issue,a philosophical silver bullet.

The Christian god is described as the omnipotent, or all-powerful, omniscient, or all-knowing, omni-benevolent, or all-good and all-loving creator of the universe and all that is within it, including the laws that govern it.

Additionally, most Christian denominations believe that god values free will.

As we can see from casual observation, there is evil, in the form of suffering, in the world.

Some of this suffering is in the form of "natural evil" such as natural disasters and disease. Some of the suffering is in the form of "moral evil," or bad things that we human beings do to one another.

The quandary that has plagued this view of god and which was the subject of the recent debate between Ehrman and D'Souza is summed up thusly: If god is all-loving and all-good then why does he allow evil to exist? If he permits its existence then can he really be described as all-good? If he can't stop it, then he can't be all-powerful. Ehrman and D'Souza debated well but never got to the heart of the issue.

On the issue of natural evil, if god could create any possible world, could he not have created one in which there was no natural evil or suffering but in which free will is preserved? Could he not have made a world without tsunamis and without AIDS and without drought and famine but within which humans could still make choices regarding moral evil?

Even if death is a necessity (which there is no reason to think that it would have to be for a god who can bring about any conceivable eventuality), it could occur instantly and painlessly for all. Even if he were to create a world devoid of natural evil, that does not mean that moral evil would necessarily cease to exist, so the absence of natural evil would not negate free will or the ability to choose to do moral evil. Even if there were no tornadoes or floods, you could still steal a candy bar from the store or covet your neighbor's wife.

However, this is not the main point of my argument. The misguided concept that moral evil is a necessary condition of existence is the crux of my argument.

First a little thought exercise.

1. Imagine if a person were to take a survey of 1000 people concerning their food preferences.

2. On this survey, the participants are asked to rate their preferences for a variety of different foods on a scale of 1 to 100. A score of 100 means that the participant could eat that food just about every day and that it is one of their favorites. A score of 1 means that the participant has a deep loathing for that food and would only eat it if they were facing certain starvation.

3. Imagine that out of the 1000 participants, 100 reported that that beets rated a 1, meaning that they would have to be near death to eat them.

4. Now, additionally imagine if the 100 participants who rated beets as a 1 were separated from the rest of the group and taken into a cafeteria and offered the choice of several different foods; pizza, tacos, hamburgers, tofu, hot dogs, chicken breast, grilled vegetables and, lastly, beets.

5. Not surprisingly, none of our participants would choose to eat the beets.

Did offering them these foods in any way deprive the participants of their free will? Were they not able to choose any of the foods offered? Limiting the pool of participants in the experiment in no way limited their ability to choose freely of the foods offered.

If god is omniscient, then he, by definition, is able to foresee what each of the persons that he choose to create will do after being created. It seems that without this ability, there would be no such thing as “prophesy,” for in order for god to predict the future through his chosen human mouthpieces (prophets), he would first have to have the ability to peer into the future.

By definition, an omni-powerful god would be able to create an infinite number of people. Out of this infinite set, there would be some who would rate a 1 on their natural predilection towards perpetuating moral evil. Out of an infinite number of potential humans, there would also be some who would choose to do what god wills and turn away from moral evil. If god lacked the ability to create (out of an infinite set of possibilities) any humans that would freely choose to follow his will, then, by definition, he lacks omnipotence.

You may now be seeing why I bothered with the imaginary food survey. Just as within our imaginary set of survey participants there were some who avoided beets. Out of an infinite set of potential people, there would be some number who would choose not to do things that are morally evil. Remember we are talking about an infinite set, completely boundless in number or in attributes. Within an infinite set, all conceivable possibilities and combinations of attributes would exist.

Think of our original pool of 1000 survey participants as our potential cafeteria visitors. Out of these, we chose only to invite those who we knew would avoid beets to come to the cafeteria to continue the experiment. With his omniscience, could not god only create the people that he knows will choose to avoid moral evil without impinging upon their free will? After all, the experimenter in the food survey did not interfere with the participants' ability to choose to eat beets in the cafeteria. He merely selected only those that he knew would avoid this choice of their own volition. By creating only those who would choose not to do moral evil, god could express his omni-benevolence by removing moral evil from the world while in no way interfering with free will. Since this is not the reality that we observe in the world, then it must be that there is some limit either to gods omni-benevolence or his omnipotence.

To some degree, if he exists, god must already make some choices about whom, out of an infinite number of potential creations, he chooses to create or not to create. If not, then there would be an infinite number of human beings. We know that the world population is around 6.7 billion...Although I was never great at math, I am pretty sure that this is a finite number. He must also choose which attributes to give people. I do not have wings, so does this mean that I am deprived of the free will to choose to fly without the aid of machinery?

So to sum it up, god must have made the choice to allow moral (as well as natural) evil to exist in the world or must have been unable to stop it.

While this is not proof that a god does not exist in some form, it certainly casts some serious doubts that an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent god who also values free will exists.

I tried to explain this concept to both Nicole, who is an armchair Christian, but knows very little about her purported faith, and to Suzanne, who is a reluctantly agnostic, lapsed Catholic who can't quite let go of her ties to religion. Neither of them could grasp the idea, so I ask you, Dear Reader, to let me know if there is some flaw in my logic.

Prostitution Challenge

One blue law that just seems to linger on is the legal prohibition against prostitution.

Here are two scenarios to consider.

Scenario A – An adult man meets an adult woman in a hotel lobby. They have a few drinks and go to his hotel room and have sex.

Scenario B- An adult man meets an adult woman in a hotel lobby. They have a few drinks and go to his hotel room and have sex. After they have sex, the man gives the woman an envelope containing some money.

The man and woman in Scenario B run a very realistic risk of being thrown in jail for violating laws prohibiting prostitution. The only difference between Scenario A and Scenario B is that in Scenario B, money was exchanged between the two parties.

Here is the challenge:

Can you name any activity, that would otherwise be legal, that is made illegal simply due to the fact that money or something else of value is exchanged?

If you can think of one, please leave a comment. If you can't think of one, then why is prostitution singled out as the only crime that is made illegal simply by virtue of money changing hands?

The Phony War on Christmas

With Halloween still receding from our rear view mirrors, the wacky Christian Right has already started their annual bellyaching that Christmas is under attack. The American Family Association has launched a boycott of Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic stores, due to the fact that this chain of mall stores chooses not to use the word "Christmas" in its holiday advertising. According to the AFA post, the Gap issued a "politically correct" statement that "Gap recognizes that many traditions are celebrated throughout this season and we feel it is important to display holiday signage that is inclusive to everyone."

In a country where, according to this study, 18.5% of Americans consider themselves non-Christian, is trying to create an atmospere of inclusiveness not a good idea?

The guy who is typically credited with coining the term "War on Chistmas," Peter Brimelow seems to be a fellow of dubious distinction. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a page about Brimelow in its Intelligence Report section, which is set up to monitor "hate groups and extremist activity in the US." Brimelow even appears to have gotten into a little dust up with Brad Krantz and Britt Whitmire, the hosts of one of the best local radio talk shows around, the Brad and Britt show on WZTK in Greensboro, NC.

For the record, let me say that I think that the whole thing is much ado about nothing. Much in the same way that the trade name Xerox became a shorthand term for photocopy or that Band-Aid has come to mean any self-adhesive bandage, or Jacuzzi has come to mean any hot tub, Christmas has become a
genericized trademark for a winter holiday. Modern Americans think more about the secular pantheon of Christmas; Scrooge, Santa, and Frosty the Snowman than they think about the religious figures that were once widely associated with it. What really upsets the culture warriors is that they see that the ground is shifting beneath their feet in regards to people's religious views. The sharp rise in those who identify themselves as atheists or agnostics has to be a particularly disturbing trend.

So rather than feeding the martyr complexes of right wing nutters like Brimelow, Bill O'Reilly, or the much put-upon Catholic League's Bill Donohue, when someone tells you "Merry Christmas," don't fight it. When you do that, the mental terrorists win. The best thing to do is to take the complete opposite tact and say thank you and talk about how much you love watching A Charlie Brown Christmas and how much you love to hear "Walking in a Winter Wonderland." Quibbling over whether or not to call the holiday season "Christmas" only stokes their petty little fire. If we use the term more often and more loosely, the mental association with the cult of the Nazarene will fade away just as the holiday's origins in the pagan festival of Saturnalia have faded from the collective consciousness of mainstream culture. The key to winning this battle of the culture war is not confrontation, it is assimilating the holiday completely into the popular culture.