I only have one normal kidney myself. But I'd even give that to me child if needed.
Agreed - but I think when you start talking about giving your own life that it ceases to be a moral obligation, but is certainly a good thing to do.
If you are asking this question in search of a universal answer, I don't believe there is one. Morality is personal, not universal. We each have to decide for ourselves what our moral obligations are.Suppose you have a child and your child needs blood, bone marrow, or kidney to survive an illness. Would you have the moral obligation to donate your blood, bone marrow, or kidney to your child? If you do not donate one of those things, are you in sin?
If you are asking this question in search of a universal answer, I don't believe there is one. Morality is personal, not universal. We each have to decide for ourselves what our moral obligations are.
I would feel morally obliged to donate anything, up to and including even my life, for the life of my child. I think many people would feel that way. But I don't see it as any sort of universal moral rule. I don't think there are any universal moral rules.
Generally speaking however, yes you would have the moral obligation to give of yourself to save your child.
There maybe extenuating circumstances of course. For instance: Do you only have one kidney, so that giving it up would kill you? This would be an exception obviously.
If you are asking this question in search of a universal answer, I don't believe there is one. Morality is personal, not universal. We each have to decide for ourselves what our moral obligations are.
I would feel morally obliged to donate anything, up to and including even my life, for the life of my child. I think many people would feel that way. But I don't see it as any sort of universal moral rule. I don't think there are any universal moral rules.
I agree. Especially in a case where it would be a single parent that is raising other children as well. You could argue that it wouldn't be right to sacrifice yourself for one child when the other children need you.
How do you imagine this applies to everyone? At any given time on the planet I'm sure there will be a number of people who think torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable behavior. And a whole lot more who simply just don't care.There are certain moral principles that apply to everyone such as it is morally wrong to torture babies just for the fun of it.
How do you imagine this applies to everyone? At any given time on the planet I'm sure there will be a number of people who think torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable behavior. And a whole lot more who simply just don't care.
Would there be any inconsistency between these two statements?
A father does not have the moral obligation to allow his dying child to use his body parts such as his kidney in order to avoid death.
A pregnant woman has the moral obligation to allow the unborn human to continue to use her uterus.
The reason why I'm asking is because some pro-choice advocates think that there is an inconsistency between those two statements. If it is morally wrong for a woman to get an abortion, then it is morally wrong for a father to not save his child from death.
Suppose you have a child and your child needs blood, bone marrow, or kidney to survive an illness. Would you have the moral obligation to donate your blood, bone marrow, or kidney to your child? If you do not donate one of those things, are you in sin?
I don't know. I'm not in charge of what's right and wrong for 'everyone'. You're asking me to pass judgments on people and situations that I know nothing about, and will never know about.It is wrong for everyone to do it.