Analysis of The Survival Lottery Authored by John Harris - Research Paper Example

? "THE SURVIVAL LOTTERY" BY JOHN HARRIS Survival for the lottery is an experiment suggested by philosopher John Harris in 1975 in the book “The Survival Lottery”. Its foundation to people was to picture if the donation of organs would be expected to save more individuals than it would kill1. Hypothetical or individuals are given a number and drawn out of the draw when help is needed. They are needed to forgo their existence to allow two or more people’s lives. This meant that if there was a healthy person and two patients that would die due to insufficient organs, the only hale and hearty being should take responsibility, and donate the organ and save the lives of the other two patients. In this way, more lives would end up being rescued. Nevertheless, many philosophers deviate with the method of killing of one healthy man to save lives. John Harris had tried to imagine an environment where in case anyone was in need of any kind of transplant it could be easily and successfully done2. It does not have to take long while people are in search of the organ. This means no one will ever have to kick the bucket simply because the organ she or he needs seem not reachable in any part of the world. This was a radiant thought considered seriously since the majority will get saved from death, but the fact that one person’s life has to be killed, makes the idea rather inappropriate to be put into consideration. They believe in the existence of a moral difference between killing and leaving to die. They claim that the dying and the existence of a life should be chances that human needs not to interfere with, though they have a duty that makes endurance of the maximum numbers of lives possible while dealing with life. It is suggested that the institutions of survival lottery have not gone so far to mitigate the harmful side effects in terms of terror and distress of the victims. Witnesses and the society would be occasioned by the doctors simply by snatching passers–by off the street and disorganizing them for the benefit of the less fortunate. The lottery scheme would give the option of life and death decision to the medical practitioners, and eliminate the possibility of such authority falling into the hands of a human being, though the fear and suffering would still remain. This would be considered a wrong deed biblically since the power of life and death does not reality on human hands. The doctors should do their level best in trying to save a life, but not kill the healthy for the option of the ill. Those that kick the bucket due to lack of organs should be considered to be Gods. There exist some legislative/judicial decisions that create a legal obligation and right in the lottery. The most prominent legislative rule is referred to as a defense of the survival lottery on utilitarian and Lockean grounds3. For the purpose of this concept, the operations will be perfect and that the society can make omniscient decisions and suggest that the use of computers, although the means are considered extraneous. By scheming an essential processing unit algorithm, pitfalls in the scheme would be prevented. The difficulties that arise from the elderly having a high demand for organs would be collected by introducing age into the algorithm. Overdrinking and smoking should be considered. The processor would be planned in order to maximize utility, and each exchange would result in the development just by definition4. Another key point of the second treatise of government is intolerance for arbitrary decision; the survival lottery is random in choosing who will give life to others in scenery. It should be uncovered that the lottery is not arbitrary is random. Finally, Locke requires that either the citizens to be consent to the system, tactically or explicitly through the legislature if the lottery survival is a non-arbitrary the overall preservation of the society with the consent of the majority5. He agrees that a soldier has the responsibility to protect local individuals of a certain boundaries or forced to resign if they are unable to execute it, because it is necessary in which the head has his power to preserve the rest. It is decently defensible to kill some for the preservation of the society, and the ultimate end of the society is the preservation and security of the life span, liberty, and stuff of its members. Hence, Locke considers it is reasonable to kill few citizens to preserve the lives of other persons. Despite the fact that the decision of combatant in taking away life is different from the doctors, the doctors would take away the life of the innocent and industrious people in the society simply because the computer has selected them. The defense force does not take away the life of the blameless, but rather the scandalous. Many are the moments that they apprehend and bar them in prisons, but unless the person is resisting or trying to murder the combatant will they put an end to their lives. The distinction that is drawn between the lottery and the army is that both deal with preserving lives at the arum. Individual concept to give life is discouraged under the lotto, but neither is it for an employee army. The term arbitral is an essential component of lockers reasoning as a different definition than conversational meaning6. Likewise, the wise computer would be best suited to bring to life, and if no difference could be made then an unsystematic selection, could barely be called based on personal preference. Locke himself argued something could not be arbitrary if it is limited by reasons. The government through the legislature would have to pass a law to make it happen for the survival lottery to be created and thus; the preponderance would have given categorical concept, through a referendum vote or through indirectly the use of representatives. A smaller amount of gives it is tacit consent as long as it chooses to be part of the society by belonging to the society and agree to obey them7. A disobedient member would continuously have an opportunity to leave the society, but only before being called upon to give life. The survival lottery has been shown in ideal circumstances to be morally justifiable. It conforms to a typically benthamite-practical disagreement. The accumulation of a defective computer adds depth to the calculus proposed by the mill. The lottery can be upheld by lack of society views. The cornerstone of this disagreement is that people give up their singular rights and power to the society to achieve the ultimate goal of such a group; the protection of life, property and liberty of citizens8. If it is necessary to defend the society from outside goals, be it an enemy nation or an illness; it is morally justifiable to sacrifice for the overall good of the society. Practical consideration destroys the calculus rendering it unforgivable in the application just like Raskolnikov realizes that he was not a conqueror. We find that there is no a super computer or super surgeon There are several objections toward lottery that include; The security of individuals will be threatened because of the survival lottery. However, the response to this in favor of the survival lottery is that the people only need education on what will make them scared and what will not. The tendency to believe that they should not play with God, but this still means that the transplants should also not be carried out. On the other hand, killing is believed to be worse and therefore, in the situation of a being killed to let Y and Z survive should not be applied; instead, Y and Z should be left to die9. On individuals' perceptions, the expectation of giving our lives for others is a too high demand because we also want to subsist. There will be too high suffering and fear in the society because of lottery survival. Doctors should not decide who to save and whom to kill and thus, only those people that are to die soon should be put in the lottery. Perhaps by relying on the ethical intuition, our self-assurance feels encouraged by some morally relevant differences between our bringing about to death of a healthy person and letting some patients die due inadequate of organs10. Whether or not we retain the confidence within the institution would be interesting to recognize if the society was to confront us and the survival lottery existed and also, accepted by everybody and viewed to save many lives that otherwise would end up lost. Great practical difficulties in the methods of implementing the lottery would occur. In many instances, it would be difficult in excruciating to decide if the person had brought bad luck on himself. There are lots of ways that people can add to this predicament and the desired part of how far a person is responsible for his fate would be formidable. Other cases where we certain that a person is innocent; it is difficult to acquire the confidence to save him. The power of the lottery would be a very powerful weapon to those that would like to use it wrongly. Those in power of choosing people to be in the lottery so that they can give out their lives can consider their enemies or those they have, collided with in their day today activities. The world would have so many immoralitility such as bribes and corruption since no one would be ready to sacrifice life to save others. People would not end up believing in the course. They would intellect some how as doctors' deliberate ways to take life away from those they are displeased. Therefore, we should be grateful that such an act does not exist. Therefore, dying to save the lives of dying patients X and Y would be difficult as in the case of the healthy man. It is healthy to be pure, and there is also a higher amount to be rewarded for the rejection of the scheme11. That price is the lives of Y and Z and majority like them. In conclusion, lottery survival is not supposed to be implemented because there is no life that ought to be replaced with extra. It should also be noted that there is no life that is more important than the other, and performing lottery survival will be denying an individual the right to live12. Lottery survival will also create insecurity among people since there will be no rules that stipulates on the right procedure to choose a person that should sacrifice his life for the extra13. There is no guarantee that in case an individual sacrifice their lives for other two patients, and that the procedure will be a total success and this may be taking life of an innocent healthy person for a course not suitable. The idea of John Harris should rather be just considered as his brilliant idea, but people should never come to an agreement of having to implement it. The sacrifice of giving your life for another to live is also a very big sacrifice a person can make since no one is a saint and we all want to live14. The world is rather a beautiful place with the idea of life being taken away in Gods will rather than humans. Bibliography Daniels, Rick. 2004. Nursing fundamentals caring & clinical decision making. Australia: Delmar Learning. Ezra, Ovadia. 2006. Moral dilemmas in real life current issues in applied ethics. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Print. Harris, John 1975. The survival lottery. London: Cambridge University Press. Ndukaihe, Vernatius Emeka, and Peter Fonk. 2006. Achievement as value in the Igbo/African Identity: the ethics.Berlin: Lit. Shafer-Landau, Russ. 2012. The ethical life: fundamental readings in ethics and moral problems. Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More