Morality evolve out of subjective preferences of those who are in power.

Western people have a far stronger sense of “equality” of outcome as their ideal than other people. To western people, any means that allow some productive guys to live longer, acquire more mates, or survive better in the gene pool will always be “wrong”.

If the rich can just buy organ, then they can get higher priority for treatment and live longer. This is “wrong” in western countries.

Prohibition of organ donor is just one among many similar strings of rules.

If health care is totally regulated through free market mechanism, the rich can live longer than the less productive people. Tada… It’s wrong. Now whether they can get medical treatment is decided by “death panel” http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory241.html

If sugar babies are legal, the rich that can attract and pay more women can get more women than the poor. Tada… It’s wrong.

When education is totally privatized, smarter kids and kids with richer parents will get better education. Tada… It’s wrong.

If prostitution is legal, hot babes can earn large amount of money http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmXLonSBMNvhOli00jFF0fK65pSw Tada… It’s wrong again.

I recognize some pattern here. Every time some one with better talent can get something other people cannot, there will be tons of people that say it’s wrong. If the number is large enough, suddenly it becomes wrong.

Effectively while you can be rich in western civilization through productivity, which is the great part of this civilization, the only thing you can buy with your money are doodads that won’t improve your gene pool survival.

Effectively it’s genocide against the most productive individuals and in western civilization, that’s moral. That’s ethical. Just 60 years ago they slaughtered their best and brightest in German and Turkey, when everything else fail.

Actually the same happen in other civilizations too. I guess it’s just human basic instinct to get rid superior competitors out of the gene pool.

Yes you can make way more money than your comrades, but money is the only thing you can have more.

Allowing organ donor will allow dying persons to inherit more wealth to his offspring. Most organs are regenerate-able. Kidneys for example can be taken up to 75% and will grow back. So is bone marrow. This will greatly eliminate poverty. That would undermine governments’ excuse to get bigger, and hence will be considered wrong too.

Having an organ market will establish some market price. That way every soldiers that are killed in battle can have their organ harvested and the money can go to their families.

It’s not wrong in ethical sense. It’s wrong in a sense that it’s politically incorrect. Government want to regulate trade and by selling your organ you sort of undermine their effective “ownership” of your body.

Another issue is most things that give government power over what you control is considered ethical by government. It’s like robbers thinking that you giving him wallet is a good thing. Why wouldn’t he?

So smoking save dope is “wrong” while government having power to decide what you can smoke is considered “good”

The same way marriage where government control everything is considered good while prostitution where you decide for your self the term is considered bad.

Here, organ transplant is the same thing. If someone want to sell organ and deal with you straight, it’s wrong. If government then regulate it by preventing the organ donor from getting top bucks and giving the organ to the most worthless death row inmates, it’s “good”.

The whole thing is just statist mentality.

In a sense, ownership is not as important controlship and controlship is effective ownership.

By preventing you to sell your organ, government effectively says that they “own” your body and you have to bribe officials first before they allow it. By selling your organ you effectively rob government out their ownership.

It’s the same with prohibition of sex outside marriage. Government is effectively saying that they are the only pimp and you got to appease them first before you can have sex by bribing or picking only singles or those favored by government.

When you do consensual acts with high value without governments’ approval, governments official lose their potential bribe that they could have had.

This may sound strange. But just look at income tax. People actually think that if you don’t pay tax you rob government, even though it’s your own money. It’s like that.

Some safeguard need to be there to ensure that people don’t just sell their organ based on some hidden clause written in small letters when they sign up to some internet free cookies offer. However, there is nothing unethical or wrong in selling organ in most cases that I know of.