R: If You Want My Organs, You'll Have to Pry Them from My Warm, Dead Body

The U.S.—and the world, in fact—has a shortage of organ donors. Over one hundred thousand Americans are currently waiting for life-saving transplants. Many people who would be willing donors never register—and when they die they take with them cures that some patients need. But what if we make organ donation mandatory? (Of course it would be doublespeak to call it "donation" then.) No doubt many more lives would be saved, at the expense of only the dead (or rather, their bodies). There is good reason to believe that nearly everyone would be willing to donate their organs if that were the default arrangement (the so-called "opt-out" system). Such altruism is not only natural to humans, but also encouraged by most religions. And yet there are some minority faiths—for instance, Shinto—that take a strong stand against transplantation. Moreover, many of the major religions disagree on the precise timeline of death—and thus when it is legal to remove the organs. Is this an instance where we should sacrifice religious freedom for the common good? Another line of argument is that mandatory organ donation is fundamentally utilitarian—an outside authority must determine the value of the organs to the (perhaps unwilling) donor and to the recipient. And although it might be a slippery slope, is it conceivable that this same calculus could be used to justify forced removal of organs from the living? Or, even more radically, could this lead to some "less worthy" individuals being sacrificed to provide life-saving transplants for those who are deemed more worthy? Maybe, but perhaps we should not spurn all compulsion because of some troubling, yet remote, possibilities. Especially where human life is concerned, it may be fair to demand societal cohesion.

Join us this Wednesday, March 5th, in the Calhoun Parlor, at7:30 pm as we discuss the future of our precious insides. All are welcome!

Alumni Weekend Debate Caucus, R: Burn the Heretics

Alright, so no one is actually advocating recourse to the methods of the Inquisition (the alumni may speak for themselves). Nonetheless, a good ole' dissent versus authority debate will force us to consider some of the seemingly paradoxical features of modern society. For instance, to what extent is freedom—of religion, of speech, of thought—both desirable and viable? How can we discern between rival authorities that all claim a monopoly on the Truth? And how do we decide which dissidents are wise and which are dangerous? Even when it values liberty as a fundamental right, society necessitates conformity, and conformity is itself a natural consequence of society. It often takes a heretic to break mindless obedience—yet that same heretic might tear society to shreds. Which heretics do we tolerate? Which do we burn?

Join us this Friday, February 28th, in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room, at 7:30 pm as we are joined by our distinguished Alumni to determine the fate of society's nonconformists. All (even the heretics) are welcome!

R: The Devil Wears Prada

Let's not fool ourselves: good fashion sense can take us a long way at Yale—and in the world at large. Few men have been criticized for looking too sharp, and few women have been censured for donning an aptly-chosen dress. It is by no means easy to look good all of the time, so those who pull it off deserve the credit (or the envy). But dressing to impress says painfully little about one's character. To the contrary, many people who go out of their ways to perfect their physical appearances are in a sense compensating for what they lack underneath the guise. And yet conservatives are often the first to promote respectable dress in what is becoming a largely apathetic society. Is this hypocritical? Does a commitment to fashion perpetuate our culture of materialism and consumption, which conservatives (for the most part) abhor? But consider fashion's status as a form of art—after all, high fashion emphasizes aesthetics above functionality, and it's about as old as any other art. So if we're willing to discredit good dress because it doesn't concern the "life of the mind," should we do away with painting and sculpture as well? Maybe there's a fundamental difference between art on walls and art on people; perhaps the former is insightful, while the latter is deceitful—some would even say, devilish.

Join us this Wednesday, February 19th, at in Rosenfeld Hall Common Room, at 7:45 pm as we question the mores of fashion and appearance. All are welcome!

R: Bros Before Fine, Upstanding, Young Women

As Valentine's Day rolls around this year, some of us are torn between our friendly relations and our romantic liaisons—existing or imaginary. Should one type of relationship take precedence over the other, especially in this exciting period of our lives? Should the young single man or woman focus on cultivating platonic relationships rather than courting romantic interests? Maybe romance is too restrictive—it can tie us down with one person for a very long time—and perhaps we need the diversity of multiple casual acquaintances to broaden our college and post-graduation experience. But then why should we ever restrict ourselves in this way at all? Is all romance bad? I hope not! Some would say that only in a romantic, loving relationship do we grow to appreciate another person more than we appreciate ourselves—that loving another actually makes us more human. Still, many of us who will be alone come Friday have good reason to think that this is all a bunch of hodgepodge.

Join us this Wednesday, February 12th, at 7:45 pm in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room as we bicker, opine, and cry about love and the single life. All are welcome!

R: Put Down the Death Penalty

The debate over capital punishment has surfaced so often over the last few decades that it needs little explanation. But while the question is easy to frame, the answer isn't. Execution was long thought to be a reasonable—perhaps necessary—way to punish the most egregious crimes. The cosmic order is upset as long as the murderer lives, the argument goes, and retribution is the only way to restore it. The more recent drive to abolish the death penalty has exposed some of the issues surrounding it. After all, is it even the state's duty to preserve this cosmic order? Doesn't it suffice to lock up the criminals so that they don't harm any more people? But then again, the death penalty might be the strongest deterrent we have to prevent future crimes, and several studies have backed this claim. Unfortunately, governments' efforts to prevent—rather than just punish—certain crimes has led to massive abuses of state power throughout history. And if we are wary of governments infringing on so many of our liberties—religious, political, and economic—why would we allow them to dispossess us of the most unalienable right of all—life? Perhaps Man shouldn't be in the business of taking those things that have been granted by a higher authority.

Join us this Wednesday, February 5th, at 7:45 pm in the Berkeley Mendenhall Room as we debate this pressing issue in crime, punishment, and justice. All are welcome!