Is refusing to donate your organs wrong?

The fact of being dead is very much beside the point.

A moral code that denies man even the right to dispose of his own organs in his own will as he sees fit is pretty well a morality of total enslavement.

 

Is your point is to say that no one should value their property after they are dead? In which case I'll just point out that this is, by fact, not the case. People do value their property after death, while living.

To be more explicit: People attach value to their property and where it will go after they are no longer alive. They attach and appreciate this value while they are alive. By definition they can attach no value when they are dead.

As to the validity of a will and final testament. If I sign a contract with a third party while I am alive that they should receive my property upon my death for transfer to my stated heirs, then what is wrong with this? Likewise if I write into my will that I wish to be cremated, then what is wrong with this?

If you want to go into contract specifics then there is a highly valid way of doing this. You transfer all your property to the estate of the will executor or stated heirs, under the condition that you retain full functional use of the property for the length of your life. Then the title of property is not transfered at death, the contract is just expired. But this is hardly necessary, as most people appreciate the value and validity of a Will as a very special form of contract.

 

Well obviously it is not of no benefit to me else I would not do it.

You are still confusing future and present. I act now to secure ends in the future. This is always the nature of action. In the future I may or may not be able to enjoy those ends. But this does not change the desire in the present to see those ends met in the future. And so I will go about my business as in accordance with meeting those ends.

And yet people do this.

It is not irrational. In fact it would be irrational to unconditionally give away your property upon your death as you have been promoting.

Why would I want the wealth that my life and energy have gone to create ... my hard work ... to go to someone who will use it to further ends I do not agree with? No. Having fought that far, all the way to my deathbed why would I want to undo my hardwon progress by simply giving aide to those whom I have been fighting, and whom have made my life so difficult?

Go back and read my original posts in this thread to see how this relates to organs.

And yes it is egoistic, and that is a great thing.

 

This is an interesting point.

Schnell, are you saying that it doesn't matter to you, therefore it should matter to you that it's supposedly wrong?

Further how can a moral standard be applied if, as you claim, you are dead. A dead man can do no wrong.

 

You know only what is common, not what is good. If you think self-sacrifice is good, then go forth and destroy yourself in the name of others.

Altruism is a very primeval and basic means of control. It's refutation is simple.

If you are an altruist, then you live only for the benefit of others. And yet others can always benefit from having the things you have right now. Others might eat your food, live in your house, and breathe your air. Therefore if you are to be an altruist you should rightly kill yourself.

As I have said many times: altruism is the philosophy of death. There is nothing more evil than a form of brainwashing that turns the human conscience against man himself. No longer does one's conscience say "stealing is wrong", but rather "you are wrong". Under altruism, existence is the original sin for which one must constantly atone. Hence altruism is a code of non-existence; For in order to be good, you cannot be at all.

If you think a moral standard which holds non-existence as its highest ideal to be a good idea then to be consistent you must now take the advice given above.

As to whether or not it is a moral position to donate your organs, after some contemplation I have decided that not donating your organs does not constitute an act which is subject to moral assessment, as it involves only one person. However if you do decide to grant additional life to another, then this is a moral proposition, because now you must ensure that the person to whom you are granting life will use that time honorably, and not in the service of base and criminal ends.

In particular, in my case, there is a great probability that my donated organs would go to one of the very same bigoted socialists who aided in severely repressing the voluntary healthcare industry in the first-place, which in turn put they themselves in need of such donations; Hence these are not the deserving poor. And being as I hold all justice to be a moral good, and being as meta-physical justice is a subset of justice, it would be immoral and improper to shield such people from the consequences of the vicious and ruinious doctrines they hold. I would, in effect, be bailing-out those (or one of those) same fat headed socialists who keep this system going, and, in so doing, be hurting those other innocent people who might also become victim to this system. Needless to say, I can always sign a bill of transfer on my deathbed, if someone worthy of my organs comes along at the last minute. My expectation is that no such person will come along, therefore my default position would be to not transfer my organs to any other.