Post by Amadan on Aug 15, 2018 19:38:10 GMT -5
Interesting conundrum, though I also side with the utilitarian argument. As to "Where do you draw the line?" Well, everything is potentially a slippery slope, right? That's why you lawyers have jobs...
Personally, the only argument I can think of against legally requiring usable organs to be made available upon death (or at the very least, requiring people to opt out rather than opting in) is a slippery slope one - I can see ways in which wealthy and powerful individuals might "encourage" an increase in the supply of organs they need.
As for vaccinations, it seems to me that society's interest in suppressing epidemics justifies some minimal restrictions on civil liberties, just like any other existential threat. Extending the argument a little, since I am not a libertarian, I believe requiring people to pay taxes so we can have sewer systems and roadways and emergency services is also justified. Other things that do or do not justify spending tax dollars are certainly debatable, but the principal is the same. If you live in a complex, highly populous society and enjoy the benefits of civilization, you have certain obligations to help maintain it. One of those would be not allowing yourself to become a preventable vector for infectious diseases.