Intuition is the poor man's version of reason. When philosophers can't quite ground a belief in evidence, they appeal to intuition and leave it at that. Sorry, not my cup of tea.

Katievs, when you ask if virtue is scarce you equivocate on the word scarce. In economics, to say that a good is scarce is to claim that it is limited with respect to the number of objectives to which it may be devoted. By constrast, to say that virtue is scarce is merely to say that few people exhibit it. The same applies to love as you conceive of it. And I find the bought and sold emphasis to be irrelevant. Economists study "autistic" or non-exchange economocs as well. Furthermore, goods and commodities are synonyms; you do not introduce anything new by making such a distinction. Hearts remain as goods/commodities. They are a scarce means to an end. I'm not going to withdraw a truth because it makes someone sqeamish or impinges upon their moral framework.

Byron, you mentioned earlier that you were pursuing a career as a combat arms officer. If this is true, you'll learn to hate people, especially while deployed. Love too, certainly. But I'd question the Christian premise of universal love before I'd proceed to examine hatred. It seems your estimate of hatred depends upon whether or not it conforms to the proposititions of Christianity. But then again, why have you chosen the Christian framework to begin with? I don't think "Because I subscribe to the Christian worldview" suffices. It would seem odd to endure military training, with its morbid humor and incessant urging to kill other people with perfect zeal and efficiency, in order to graduate still with the conviction that hatred per se is indicative of moral deprivation.

I'm not troubled by the decision of a justice or minister of law to prefer the constitution of a foreign nation over his or her own, per se. Suppose the Republic of Scaliaville emerges from the ashes of a revolutionary conflict in sub-Saharan Africa and adopts a Constitution conforming to the legal and political convictions held by our very own Justice Scalia. Then suppose that another country, the Republic of Scalialand arises too from internal bloodshed, but assume that this fledgling country lacks a constitution. Now, would it be scandalous if Justice Scalia suggested that Scalialand adopt something like the Constitution of Scaliaville over the U.S. Constitution? I don't think so. I see no contradiction or inescapable moral dilemma in upholding one constitution as a justice of law while preferring another.

Who's read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

I don't think Jesus' ethic of universal love (love God, love others) can harmonize with hatred of others. If you love someone, then you do not hate them (love and hate are contradictory). I wonder therefore how Christians cope with such a constraining moral code. Personally, I view hatred as a potential, positive source of motivation. It gets one out of bed, as Hitchens would say. I don't love everyone; I reserve a special hatred for murderers, rapists, Islamic facists, many politicians etc. I think many people I hate should even be dealt with violently, e.g., Islamic terrorists. Some people should have their behinds handed to them, forcibly, and we should like it.

And why must we have a "religious foundation" for our political order?

If by "not religious in the traditional sense" you mean, with respect to Christianity, you don't subscribe to the view that one must accept Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior, then you'd be professing an admiration for a worldview that insists you will eventually be subject to the pains of eternal damnation.

Kenneth proposes that hearts not be distributed to children with Down syndrome. John Murdoch objects, suggesting that his daughter could have been in that position. I ask him on what grounds he objects. Then you tell me that I shouldn't ask that question and respond by saying that of course a father will be partial to his own child.

If that's the reason, then fine. But if one heart remains and father A wants his child to have it on the premise that its his child, then father B has just as good a claim to that heart if he makes the same argument.

Aside from what I think are ineffectual appeals to God and his alleged priorities, we certainly "allocate" lifespans in accordance with earthly productivity. Under a capitalist order, those with the highest productivity make the most money, and therefore, are enabled to live longer (the rich tend to live longer than the non-rich).

Prove then that it is an intellectual or moral error to taxonomize hearts as goods. You issue statements with unadulterated certitude but provide no evidence. I demonstrated why hearts are goods by showing how they meet the necessary conditions for such a designation. By contrast, you make categorical claims without even suggesting to offer some support.

Is a heart scarce? Yes. Do people want them? Yes. Then its a good. According to the study of economics, they are reducible to such. If you prohibit yourself from conceptualizing hearts as goods, then you render yourself completely incapable of understanding the "production" and distribution of them.

Save your outrage. A heart is, among other things, an economic good, a means to achieving an end. In this respect, it is no different from a car or a house. I recommend reading a good text on economics (e.g., Sowell, Becker, etc.) before you get fussy with me.

1. On what grounds do you imply that I agree with Kenneth?

2. This is a problem for anyone concerned with the distribution of scarce resources. What will you do with a limited supply of hearts and a plethora of different people with different degrees of potential who want those hearts under conditions where moneyed exchanges are prohibited? I take this question seriously; I hope I don't speak for myself.

Hearts are a scarce resource, particularly since the distribution of hearts for money is illegal. Suppose your daughter required a heart transplant. On what grounds should she be a heart transplant recipient at the expense of any other girl of the same age, cognitively intact or not?

As a  "pro-choicer", I do not find it difficult to concede that oft-made claim "Life begins at conception". What the pro-life crowd implies however is that legal rights should be granted a conception. The pro-choicers with whom I agree distinguish a fetus, at least an early fetus, from an independent human being. Walter Block espouses an interesting position on this called evictionism.