One could argue a moral obligation to provide relief, but that's going to open up a lot of doors you don't want to open. Currently the idea of bodily autonomy is very strong, so strong in fact that we can't ethically use a dead body if the owner of said body didn't want that.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Currently, you're not obligated to provide a part of your body, no matter how insignificant, even if it will save a life. Blood donation, marrow donation, organs, all that would surely be obligatory. Hell, participation in human research would easily be argued as obligatory.
Show this thread -
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole at the risk of being accused of slippery slope, but needless to say gross dudes being thirsty doesnt seem as important as needing a kidney, or bone marrow, and yet we've determined there's more harm than good in violating autonomy.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.