The proposal of Y and Z’s survival lottery can be seen as being problematic because it follows the principle of utilitarianism. This essay will show how the survival lottery develops the ideas of a utilitarianism/consequentialist argument and will seek to critique it. Firstly I will look at how the survival lottery and utilitarianism see people as merely a means to an end and how this goes against Kant’s categorical imperative. Secondly, I will explore how the survival lottery looks at killing and letting die morally equivalent and how this goes against the doctrine of acts and omissions. I will finally conclude with looking at how the survival lottery, alike utilitarianism, causes an infringement on autonomy.
The second formulation in Kant’s …show more content…
As long as the end goal of overall happiness is achieved any means are justified by obtaining the end. Harris uses the individual as a means to a collective end of happiness. Although the positive outcome of the survival lottery - that more people can live happy lives - is conceived as an end that everyone would benefit from, Harris firstly cannot assume that the end is one which is beneficial to all, secondly, Harris still uses individuals as a means to obtain the collective end. The survival lottery, alike utilitarianism fails to see individuals as inherently valuable, instead seeing individuals for their instrumental value. Both concepts see individuals as a means to an end goal of overall happiness, therefore missing a fundamental principle of morality, which underlies all of our moral …show more content…
Killing and letting die have the same consequences, so if the rightness of an act is determined purely by its consequences then from the Utilitarian perspective, killing and letting die should be morally equivalent, since the consequence of both acts are the same, therefore adhering to the equivalence thesis. The survival lottery is a “direct challenge to the belief that there is a moral difference between killing and letting die” , in principle, it follows the basic idea that the two acts are morally equivalent. Y and Z state that there is an “obligation to ensure the survival of the maximum number of lives possible” and “failure to do so will involve responsibility for the consequent deaths” showing that Harris believes that, if the doctor chooses not to intervene then he is in fact killing Y and
The second formulation in Kant’s …show more content…
As long as the end goal of overall happiness is achieved any means are justified by obtaining the end. Harris uses the individual as a means to a collective end of happiness. Although the positive outcome of the survival lottery - that more people can live happy lives - is conceived as an end that everyone would benefit from, Harris firstly cannot assume that the end is one which is beneficial to all, secondly, Harris still uses individuals as a means to obtain the collective end. The survival lottery, alike utilitarianism fails to see individuals as inherently valuable, instead seeing individuals for their instrumental value. Both concepts see individuals as a means to an end goal of overall happiness, therefore missing a fundamental principle of morality, which underlies all of our moral …show more content…
Killing and letting die have the same consequences, so if the rightness of an act is determined purely by its consequences then from the Utilitarian perspective, killing and letting die should be morally equivalent, since the consequence of both acts are the same, therefore adhering to the equivalence thesis. The survival lottery is a “direct challenge to the belief that there is a moral difference between killing and letting die” , in principle, it follows the basic idea that the two acts are morally equivalent. Y and Z state that there is an “obligation to ensure the survival of the maximum number of lives possible” and “failure to do so will involve responsibility for the consequent deaths” showing that Harris believes that, if the doctor chooses not to intervene then he is in fact killing Y and