The world is a massive community that consists of a bunch of systems interacting with one another to attempt to produce results that benefit the world. However in this video, Jacques Ellul attempts to bring attention to the dark side of how the world actually works– reality. The first issue he raises is where organ donations come from. It is a shame that diseases are real and that there are many unfortunate individuals who contract these diseases that require organ transplants to help them get better, however, there is also the question of where and how these organ donations come from. As stated in the video, an organ that is suitable for transplant must be healthy and fresh. The only possible way for this to happen is for the donor to have died from a traffic accident. Now this is a conflicting question that society encounters because society wants to save the ill patients, yet at the same time in order to save these patients, others would have to die first. Basically, it’s a trade; a life for another life. This relates to The Visit play where the town abandons Ill in exchange for wealth and better standard of living. The trade-off between the two stakes at hand are equally great, but the answer is easier for the person who is receiving the benefit. Many people, like the townspeople in the play, would choose the greater benefit for their personal gains. This is also tied in with Ellul’s other argument of technology being an interconnected system that has no faults. Technology is a massive system that is incorporated in the majority of the world’s lives. It is rare that you encounter someone who has never used technology before. In the play’s case, the entire town agreed that the Claire, the antagonist of the play, should able to receive her benefit of Ill’s death as a redemption of Ill’s wrongdoing towards her long time ago, with an “unintended bribery” on the low. It makes other people question where the justice is in that for the victims that are thrown away for society’s gain.
Ariana
Excellent post, and great link between the life-for-a-life. I think you’re the only one (so far) that has made that link. What you raise here is interesting in so far as the question of responsibility, or rather the Moral Good, is one that we choose. We negotiate a given situation and decide what is best for the community, as you mention at the top. For Güllen they decide that Ill’s death is the Good (for the town). Your post actually raises a point that we hadn’t discussed, and that is the presupposition with which we enter the play: that killing Ill is wrong. That it is bad, it is unjust, it is simply something out of resentment that should be condemned. We place responsibility on all the Gülleners, but never really ask whether they’re ok with that. Perhaps they’re all aware of what they’re doing and are perfectly ok with it, because the trade off is in their interest and that’s just fine. Very thoughtful, very provocative post. Nicely done! 5/5