🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:26 🔍 McFaul v Shimp is a famous court case from 1978 in Pennsylvania. 01:06 💊 McFaul has a rare bone marrow disease and needs a transplant from Shemp, his cousin. 02:17 📜 McFaul's lawyers request a preliminary injunction to force Shemp to donate bone marrow. 04:50 ⚖️ The court denies the request, refusing to force Shemp to undergo the procedure. 05:16 🧠 The judge, Flaherty, criticizes Shemp's refusal as "morally indefensible." 07:54 📜 There's no straightforward conflict between morality and legality in this case. 12:04 🤝 Shemp has a moral duty to donate bone marrow, while McFaul has a moral right to receive it. 15:46 🤔 Legal positivism doesn't necessarily exclude the consideration of moral arguments in law. 18:02 📜 Legal positivism doesn't imply that law is purely separate from morality, and moral concepts can sometimes be relevant to legal matters. Made with HARPA AI

So I'm just some lowly high school grad proletariat here after googling "McFall v Shimp" because I saw someone referencing it in an argument about abortion. So basically the precedent from this case would also imply that making abortion illegal or forcing someone to have a child is wrong?

The distinction is clear. However, I don't think that bone marrow donation is as light a burden as it's made out to be, nor that the patient's prognosis (assuming they get the donation) is as good as it's made to sound, at least in most cases where bone marrow transplant is indicated, especially given the state of the art in medicine as of the 1970s.

This sounds like it relates to game theory such as prisoner’s dilemma. Definitely a problem with fraud as it would be an “either-or fallacy “ and false dilemma

I think that the McFall vs. Shimp case was decided correctly. I happen to think that Judge Flaherty's ruling was both sound legally and compelling morally, and that there is NO contradiction between the two. Consider the following: A needs a kidney transplant and Z, a complete stranger, has a perfect matching kidney. Time is short, there's no time search for other donors, so A sues Z for he same cause of action that McFall sued Shimp. Yes, it's "only" an "inconvenience" to Z to be forced to "donate" one of his two kidneys, while A is more likely than not to get a new lease on life. Clearly, there's is no legal obligation on Z's part to part with one of his vital organs to save A's life. Would the law be better served if A could show that he had done nothing wrong to bring about his misery? I think not: It's irrelevant to Z. Conversely if A had cirrhosis of the liver, due to alcoholism, and Z was capable of parting with half of his liver; should Z prevail if he could demonstrate that A was at fault for damaging his liver. Once again: No, it's irrelevant. The kidney or the liver is Z's and his alone, regardless of of A's imminent death, morality, need, lack of other resources etc. Z need only say, No, and the case is over, even though all of us would choose to call his a cruel villain. In a simpler, but ultimately identical case to McFall vs. Shimp, M has 4 cars, all drivable, in his garage. His and his wife's cars are used daily, but the others are driven occasionally for fun. He got these cars from his parents before they died. Everyone in this impoverished neighborhood suburb has one car. T's car has been wrecked and he cannot afford a rental, and might lose his job in a neighboring city if he doesn't show up. Finally, bus service is unreliable. T asks M to borrow one of his reserve cars, M says "No." can T sue M, just as McFall did? He can, but he too should lose. While I personally find M's refusal inhumane and abhorrent, T still does not present a legal claim, despite M's moral blindness. Great presentation, Jeffrey Kaplan.

We need an addendum post Dobbs.

Press F for McFall

This example does not really illustrate separation between law and morals. The way I see it is this: McFall has a request for Shimp that is not legal in nature and has nothing to do with the law. Therefore, the courts should have rejected the demand for a court case. The one who acted immorally was the one who accepted this request as a court case, giving false hope to McFall and potentially causing financial loss as well. Imagine I madly fall in love with someone and decide to commit suicide if rejected. I am rejected and I go before the courts asking for an injunction that will force my beloved to offer me a one night stand (I make this request). I argue that one night stand is less painful than me killing myself. According to McFall vs. Shimp logic, a court should accept my request, take my money and give me a sermon.

Can we approach this whoke morality thing from a rusk/calculation perspective? Let's say you don't need morality, that doesn't mean others agree ir are convinced by it. So from a power construction, if you don't want to be overly deadly aggressive (comes with risks) you better make morality a part if your narrative. Also, growing up with morality is difficult to avoid. Same for Christian concept. For a Christian nation it is difficult to avoid eveyrhing even if you're an atheist. On the part of communities where the community is more important then the individual; from again a psychological stand point, you can ask 'who voices this?' Where is the angst and where is the unhealthy relationship between the community and individual. It is as if internalization and risk oppresses the individual by it most anxious members. A hit you, because I might be hit instead of you by someone I might not know. Thank you again for the really interesting lecture.

Why didn't Shimp want to give McFall his bone marrow?

Enslaved person>slave.

It's not mcfall vee Shimp but Ncfall versus Shimp get your citation correct. It hurts the ears!

So, Flaherty's ruling may impact any requirement or mandate for employer and/or government forced vaccination? If feminists cite Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut for "bodily autonomy" from the State--then that goes triple for forced vaccination.