Donalson 1

Grace Donalson
Period 1, 2
December 3rd, 2013
Philosophy Essay Final
Prompt: What would Kant say about organ transplants? Your response should distinguish (when/if
applicable) between selling and donating organs and between the type of organ.

In 2013, there was an average of 125, 807 people on the organ transplant waiting list for the
month of November (Transplantation Trends). On average, one person is added to the waiting list every
ten minutes, yet only 79 procedures are done daily. Although the severity of these cases vary, all are
desperately waiting for the day a donor is found and the hope for survival restored. In recent years,
another way to receive an organ initiated. Desperate patients who can afford to spend money and are
opposed to waiting, proceed to find someone from whom they can buy the organ of which they are in
need of. Over time, this practice has grown into what is today called the organ market. This exchange of
organs between donors has raised plenty of controversy. Although the practice of organ transplants has
been present for over 50 years, a large percentage of the population still struggles with its morality
(Transplantation). Many believe this exchange to be inhumane. Immanuel Kant, a great philosopher of the
17th and 18th century and founder of deontology, would establish it as a perfectly moral exchange. Organ
transplantation complies with some essentials of Kants own philosophy: pure, practically reasoned
actions, categorical imperatives, and the duty we have to preserve our own lives.



Organ transplants are pure, practically reasoned actions chosen out of free will. According to
Michael Sandel, in his book, Justice, Kant believed that the ability of humans to reason should be the


Donalson 2
basis of morality (107). There are, however, aspects that establish reason. In order to make rational
decision, one must be informed of all information involved with the action. As long as their doctor
informs them (whether they are a recipient or a donor) of all knowledge on the action in question, and
they still make the decision to act upon it, it is moral. Nobody can force them or tell them they have to
undergo the transplantation. This should be an autonomous decision, meaning that it is according to a
law we give ourselves, and we do something for its own sake (110). As long as organ transplantation
follows the correct characteristics, it demonstrates one of the laws of Kants philosophy: the categorical
imperative.

Kants categorical imperative substantiates that organ transplantation is moral for its an helpful
practice that does no wrong. There are two parts to a categorical imperative: 1) You must universalize
your maxim, and 2) You cannot treat someone as means to an end. To universalize ones maxim, it must
be an inflexible law that is represented the same in every case. The universalizing test points to a
powerful moral claim: its a way of checking to see if the action I am about to undertake puts my interests
and special circumstances ahead of everyone elses, and if it does then the action is immoral. In a
personal life or death situation, it's safe to assume that most people would choose the transplantation
option to save their own lives (Sandel 121). Along with being an universal maxim, this decision must also
work as an end itself, versus being a means to an end. Using something as a means to an end is akin to
using someone as an object in order to reach a goal. An end in itself is when an action is done for the sake
of the action. A decision for a person to donate an organ with the intention of doing it for the sake of the
purpose, helps this decision fit under the categorical imperative.

Organ transplantation is not only a categorical imperative, but an act of duty that perseveres the
greatest tool given to us, our bodies. According to Kant, ones motivation affects the morality of an act.
An act can be done for pleasure, pain, or to soothe societal pressures (which are all immoral respectively),


Donalson 3
or an action can be an act of duty: one that follows the categorical imperatives. We have a duty to many
things, but the duty to preserve our life is the greatest of them all. One of Kants strongest beliefs is, Our
bodies are what allow us to act as rational beings (Sandel 114). According to Kants philosophy, one
cannot donate or sell a vital organ in their body. That would result in death, and giving away what
makes us rational beings and therefore treating their body as a mere object, a means to an end. Along with
abusing ourselves in order for another to live, which is immoral on Kantian grounds. He believes the duty
for the preservation of all life is equal, which means your life is just as important as a potential donor.
Under these circumstances a non-vital organ transplant is just, because it doesnt jeopardize the donors
rationality, along with preserving two lives and doing no harm. Although vital organ transplants from
living donors is immoral, such transplants from the hundreds of millions who are classified organ donors
upon their deaths operate within moral parameters. (The Need Is Real: Data). No unnecessary lives are
taken here, and vital organs are collected from the naturally dead - which are no longer capable of reason
therefore can be treated as an object - and redistributed among the patients in need.

It is hard to find a valid philosophical argument against Kants theories. Even so, a group of
philosophers who are strong advocates of egalitarianism argue that organ transplantation is unjustified
due to the possibility of money being a key factor in choosing organ candidates. They say, that because of
the gross disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and some not being able to offer any money at all,
that it is wrong to allow this practice to take place. The wealthy have a greater chance of receiving an
organ, slimming the chances of survival for the poor by default. Theyre forgetting the other components
that make transplantation, more so selling, just. People cannot, treat oneself as a object, a mere means,
and instrument of profit (Sandel 131). However, moral motives are also at play here. In order for people
to make the decision of selling their organ, it must be done because it is the right thing to do. If someone
were to, summon the will to preserve life, not from inclination but from duty, then his action has moral
worth (Sandel 114). So money couldnt a basis for a decision and different sized rewards wouldnt be


Donalson 4
taken into consideration. In every case there is an equal opportunity to the organ at sale, no advantages
can arise.

The public may not look upon organ transplantation with a friendly eye, but that doesnt make it
wrong. Our understanding of Kants own ethics and deontology, a successful and renowned philosophy,
advocates that organ transplantation is moral. Organ transplantation works under the basis of morality for
it is an autonomous decision made out of pure practical reason. It fits under Kant's description of a
categorical imperative, and is an act of duty that preserves the the biggest factor to making us rational
beings: our bodies. Therefore, Kant would agree that these donors, sellers and recipients are heroes and
their actions should not be interfered or trifled with.






Donalson 5


Works Cited
"The Need Is Real: Data." Organdonor.gov U.S. Government Information on Organ and Tissue
Donation and Transplantation, 2012. Web. 30 Nov.
2013. <http://organdonor.gov/about/data.html>.
Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux,
2009. Print.
"Transplantation." History of Organ Donation & Transplants. New York Organ Donor Network,
n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.donatelifeny.org/all-about-transplantation/organ-transplant-history/>.
"Transplantation Trends." UNOS. United Network for Organ Sharing, 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 21
Nov. 2013. <http://www.unos.org/>.