RECONSTRUCTION
Barbro Björkman argues that it is morally permissible to donate, but morally wrong to sell, organs (461). To do this, Björkman relies on two perspectives of virtue ethics. One being the Aristotelian approach that states that moral virtues are virtues that “help us flourish as human beings.” The second being a modern approach that states that a virtuous person does “what is admirable to do” (462). By defining these two perspectives of virtue ethics, Björkman comes to the conclusion that, given a choice, a virtuous person would donate their organs, not sell them (464). Therefore, creating a commercial market for organs would be morally impermissible.
Björkman argues that in the Aristotelian view of virtue ethics, a virtuous person would promote human flourishing. She argues that donating an organ would fulfill several virtues listed by Aristotle, such as being courageous and open-handed. However, selling an organ would not be courageous or open-handed as the person selling the organ would most likely be seeking a personal gain. Björkman also argues that a …show more content…
Instead of simply stating her own beliefs, Björkman strengthens her argument by using a well-known and established theory: virtue ethics. This reliance upon moral theory makes Björkman’s argument very compelling, as it is hard to argue that being virtuous is not moral. For the same reason, using a moral theory establishes trust between Björkman and her audience. Finally, relying upon moral theory makes Björkman’s argument logical in structure: If a virtuous person would choose to donate instead of sell their organs, according to virtue ethics, it would be wrong to create a market for organs because it is not virtuous to sell organs. This makes Björkman’s position on organ donation very persuasive and difficult to
Barbro Björkman argues that it is morally permissible to donate, but morally wrong to sell, organs (461). To do this, Björkman relies on two perspectives of virtue ethics. One being the Aristotelian approach that states that moral virtues are virtues that “help us flourish as human beings.” The second being a modern approach that states that a virtuous person does “what is admirable to do” (462). By defining these two perspectives of virtue ethics, Björkman comes to the conclusion that, given a choice, a virtuous person would donate their organs, not sell them (464). Therefore, creating a commercial market for organs would be morally impermissible.
Björkman argues that in the Aristotelian view of virtue ethics, a virtuous person would promote human flourishing. She argues that donating an organ would fulfill several virtues listed by Aristotle, such as being courageous and open-handed. However, selling an organ would not be courageous or open-handed as the person selling the organ would most likely be seeking a personal gain. Björkman also argues that a …show more content…
Instead of simply stating her own beliefs, Björkman strengthens her argument by using a well-known and established theory: virtue ethics. This reliance upon moral theory makes Björkman’s argument very compelling, as it is hard to argue that being virtuous is not moral. For the same reason, using a moral theory establishes trust between Björkman and her audience. Finally, relying upon moral theory makes Björkman’s argument logical in structure: If a virtuous person would choose to donate instead of sell their organs, according to virtue ethics, it would be wrong to create a market for organs because it is not virtuous to sell organs. This makes Björkman’s position on organ donation very persuasive and difficult to