Nepharious Goings On: An Argumentative Analysis

In her essay Nepharious Goings On: Kidney Sales and Moral Arguments, Richards restates the arguments made in favour of the prohibition of organ sales by live vendors and identifies their flaws. Furthermore, Richards provides other arguments in favour of the prohibition that she claims are more logically sound and should be used instead. In this paper, I will be reconstructing the initial argument in favour of prohibition on the grounds of coercion by unrefusable offers, Richard’s objection to it, and the argument she suggests be used in its place. I will then asses the merit of the latter reformed argument in being used to argue in favour of organ sale prohibition and conclude that this reformed argument is adequately equipped to effectively

In the case of coercion by unrefusable offer, Richards recasts the argument as such: the addition of the new unrefusable choice is not simply the addition of a new choice. It works to alter and remove pre-existing options. If an individual without the option of kidney sales was to decide to live their life without the pressure/stress involved from within themselves or from external sources (family, etc.) then they had the option to do so. However, the addition of the option to sell their kidney for an unrefusable amount (such as enough money to vastly change their lives and the lives on their family) then the option to continue life without the pressures/stress of selecting this new option no longer exists. That is to say, initially one has the options of A) Keeping their kidney and living without stress, or B) Removing their kidney. An addition of option C) Removing their kidney and receiving an irresistible sum of money does not leave the individual with the initial choices as well as this new one. Option C is argued to remove the possibility of option A because there are many possible associated stresses and pressures that are introduced to the individual regardless of their choice. The individual is left with the choice of A*) Keep their kidney and live with the lost potentially life changing money, guilt, stress, etc. and options B and C. If selling their kidney was prohibited so that option C was never allowed to be introduced, then it would protect the individual from losing any of their original options –protecting their freedom of choice and