The Arguments Of Organ Sales

Organ Sales
This argument, to me, seemed at least moderately strong when I first read it. Critically evaluating it, on the other hand, proved differently. The inferences are weak, although the premises are slightly plausible, they give almost no support for the conclusion. The first reason I have linked with the second as it simply doesn’t make sense without it, and yet still isn’t very plausible. This first premise is that the only acceptable reason for the government to control your behaviour is to stop you from harming another, but if you sell an organ to someone, you don’t harm them, you help them. The conclusion does not seem any more likely than it would on its own, because this inference is weak. I can see that it does not provide much …show more content…
There are obviously many different reasons why giving another person an organ is beneficial for that person, but if we suspended any prior knowledge of this, then the inference would be weak, therefore, this hidden premise must be made explicit in order for the reasoning to give sufficient support for the conclusion. The next reason states that since we don’t stop people from giving away their organs or giving other people money, then letting those two things happen together shouldn’t be any different than letting it happen separately. I think this reason provides some support for the conclusion but it is still a rather weak inference as coming to believe the premise only makes the conclusion a little bit more likely. This reasoning is lacking the hidden premise that when people do give their organs away, they do it with approval from a medical professional and only if the recipient is in desperate need. If this hidden premise was made explicit then the reasoning would provide more support for the conclusion and the inference would be stronger. The other thing that this premise is lacking is any authority on the subject or any statistics proving that giving organs to other people is a …show more content…
Given that all three inferences are well presented and give at least some support for the conclusion, makes this argument moderately strong. The case being presented here in the first premise is that the money our government spends on overseas aid just ends up paying for limousines or presidential palaces for corrupt elites, so doesn’t do anything to promote economic growth. This premise does need some work to be made stronger; without any previous knowledge of overseas aid, the reader would need more background as to what it is generally supposed to be used for, such as severe poverty or disaster relief. The inference can be made stronger by providing this information to the reader and making this hidden premise explicit. This premise is already plausible but it does need some more evidence to back up the claim, as there is no solid proof given that the money does end up going towards wealthy elites. The next inference to evaluate is that it enables bad governments to stay in power and perpetuates the failed policies that created the problem (which requires overseas aid from other countries). The support this provides for the conclusion is moderate but I can think of a counterexample that weakens the inference: perhaps the problem that is causing the country to need aid from other countries is not due to a bad government or failed economic policies but instead a natural disaster