Is Organ Selling Inherently
Wrong?
Kantian Objections
Samuel Kerstein
Department of Philosophy
University of Maryland, College Park
Kantian Moral Principle
Act always in a way that expresses
respect for the value of humanity.
2
The Value of humanity: its dignity


Unconditional worth
Incomparable worth: “What has price
can be replaced by something else as
its equivalent; what . . . is raised above
all price and therefore admits of no
equivalent has a dignity.” (Groundwork of
the Metaphysics of Morals)
3
Kant on Organ Sales
It is always morally wrong to “deprive
oneself of an integral part or organ (to
maim oneself) –for example, to . . . sell a
tooth to be transplanted into another’s
mouth . . .” (Metaphysics of Morals)
4
Thomas Rowlandson, The Transplanting of Teeth (1787)
5
Claim: A poor person’s selling his tooth to
increase his comfort is wrong.
Possible argument for claim: Since such an action
endangers the seller’s life, it always expresses
disrespect for the value of humanity.
But: Tooth extraction isn’t always that risky.
Possible argument for claim: Since the “meaning” of
such an action is that the seller himself has the value
of a mere tool, available for the right price for others
to use as they will, the action always expresses
disrespect for the value of humanity.
But: A tooth is not a person.
6
Claim: A poor person’s selling his tooth to
increase his comfort is wrong.
In Kant’s cultural context, actions of this type tend to
promote the notion that poor people have merely the
value of tools available for the right price for others
to use as they will: a notion that clashes with the idea
that humanity has dignity.
But if an action is of a type that tends to promote a
notion that clashes with the idea that humanity has
dignity, then the action fails to express respect for
humanity’s dignity.
Therefore, in Kant’s cultural context, actions of the
type in question fail to express respect for
humanity’s dignity and so are wrong.
7
Application to Case of Organ Selling
Regulated Market: A 25-year old, married man in a
developing country has struggled as a laborer to make ends
meet. Expenses for food, housing, and, especially, medical
care for his wife have landed him in debt. His creditors are
harassing him to pay up. His government has established a
regulated market in organs. A government employee
thoroughly describes to the laborer the health risks posed by
kidney extraction as well as the benefits he will receive if he
agrees to it, including $2,500 and health insurance for life.
The man sells his organ and receives the money and
insurance coverage.
8
Does the seller act wrongly in
Regulated Market?
Let’s assume he performs an action of the
type: “poor person sells kidney to government
in order to get out of debt.”
Does this type of action tend to promote the
notion that some persons have merely the
value of tools to be used by others at will?
9
Conclusion


According to the Kantian argument at hand,
whether selling organs is morally wrong
depends in part on the cultural/historical
context in which it occurs. Moral
impermissibility is not an intrinsic feature of
the action of selling an organ.
But the argument suggests that, in the realworld contexts in which it typically does and
is likely to occur, selling organs is wrong.
10
Conclusion

Kantian ethics does not condemn all measures
that would likely lessen or eliminate the
shortage in organs for transplant. Morally
permissible alternatives to buying/selling
organs might be:
 Opt out programs for deceased-donor organ
donation.
 An organ draft.
11