In this paper, I will analyze John Harris’ argument structure in his 1975 article “The Survival Lottery,” then raise an objection to one of his arguments, then I will state what I believe Harris’ response to my arguments would be. After an analysis of Harris’ arguments, I disagree with Harris’ assertion that all lives are equal based on arguments involving society, virtue, and social effect. I believe that Harris would counter with arguments of utilitarianism, legality, and application of the veil of ignorance.
Harris concludes through his arguments, a lottery to select those that would be killed for the purpose of organ harvest is not just morally permissible, it is a moral obligation. First, he argues, (a) prima facie, we must save …show more content…
Therefore, saving multiple people with the organs of one person is the most ethical decision, since we save the most possible amount of people. He would argue that since we can use about twenty-five organs for transplant from each person that we would kill to save people, it is right to do. By extrapolation, eventually restoring twenty-five people to full health will outweigh the consequences of killing one person, despite what that one person’s life is worth overall. Most would agree that two hundred and fifty lives are more valuable than ten lives, despite whoever those ten are. This is not necessarily to say that each of those lives are equal in value; however it is very hard to argue against the fact that it is mathematically likely for two hundred and fifty people to have a greater impact on the earth than ten people, even if those ten people’s lives are worth more individually than the lives of the two hundred and …show more content…
The veil of ignorance involves us fully separating ourselves from society and ourselves, forcing us to imagine a scenario in which we have no idea what position in society we will inhabit. This allows us to make impartial and implicit decisions about the laws of society. Using this method, we would have to consider the situation in which we are both someone that may be killed and someone that may be saved. Because we are exponentially more likely to be one saved from the organ transplant rather than one being killed for organs, we say that the right thing to do would be to hold the lottery. Though this does not assume equality, the veil of ignorance is often used to create the most equal society possible. ADD QUOTE. It is however worth noting that many believe that the veil of ignorance is impractical and inapplicable to
Harris concludes through his arguments, a lottery to select those that would be killed for the purpose of organ harvest is not just morally permissible, it is a moral obligation. First, he argues, (a) prima facie, we must save …show more content…
Therefore, saving multiple people with the organs of one person is the most ethical decision, since we save the most possible amount of people. He would argue that since we can use about twenty-five organs for transplant from each person that we would kill to save people, it is right to do. By extrapolation, eventually restoring twenty-five people to full health will outweigh the consequences of killing one person, despite what that one person’s life is worth overall. Most would agree that two hundred and fifty lives are more valuable than ten lives, despite whoever those ten are. This is not necessarily to say that each of those lives are equal in value; however it is very hard to argue against the fact that it is mathematically likely for two hundred and fifty people to have a greater impact on the earth than ten people, even if those ten people’s lives are worth more individually than the lives of the two hundred and …show more content…
The veil of ignorance involves us fully separating ourselves from society and ourselves, forcing us to imagine a scenario in which we have no idea what position in society we will inhabit. This allows us to make impartial and implicit decisions about the laws of society. Using this method, we would have to consider the situation in which we are both someone that may be killed and someone that may be saved. Because we are exponentially more likely to be one saved from the organ transplant rather than one being killed for organs, we say that the right thing to do would be to hold the lottery. Though this does not assume equality, the veil of ignorance is often used to create the most equal society possible. ADD QUOTE. It is however worth noting that many believe that the veil of ignorance is impractical and inapplicable to