Originally Posted by Jay J
But , I don't think when I start out a criticism that it's incumbent on my to say, "Michelle either relies on libertarian thinking, is inconsistent, is unfair, or consciously holds a foundational view that's controversial to the larger society, or perhaps even obliviously holds a view that's much more controversial than she realizes."
Sure, agreed, but recall how this got started.
You said that Michelle's POV would require her to be pro legalized organ selling. I said no, in fact there are reasons why one would still oppose that even if you took Michelle's view. You then said that my arguments were off topic, because I was failing to realize that Michelle was taking an extreme libertarian view, etc. And there we went.
Ultimately, like I said, I'm open to the idea that Michelle is wrong (since I don't actually agree with her, it's pretty easy to convince me of that, even if I think her arguments are more reasonable than you do and that this issue is more one on which reasonable people can differ). But I simply don't see anything in her argument to justify organ selling being a right. Indeed, as I tried to point out in my last post, I see part of the issue being that people don't have the right to sell their body (and thus also can't be bound by implied promises to allow someone else the use, although they are free to donate). I see a connection between Michelle's POV and my reasons for being against organ selling (and selling one's self into slavery), even though I don't agree with her actual conclusions.
I get that you probably don't agree, and that's fine, but I don't think my position here (or Michelle's) is inherently unreasonable.
And this is why I'm less interested in the underlying argument, perhaps -- from my POV it's not really related to the part of it we've been debating.
Ah, well. I think this is it for me, although I'll read whatever you choose to add and can't promise there won't be super tempting bits where I want to make something clearer, but I'm going to try not to.
Don't know if this has been pure irritation for you as it sometimes seemed, but I've enjoyed it, for the most part, and found your perspective interesting (even when I perhaps didn't understand it as well as you would have liked).