Argical Analysis Of John Harris's 'The Survival Lottery'
to any other life, and by correlation death should be random. Thus, he concludes that (e) we are morally obligated to kill one randomly selected person for the purpose of organ harvest to save multiple people from premature death. Harris’ conclusion is flawed, as has arguments are illogical and impractical. As I will demonstrate later, Harris is able to defend his conclusion, but he cannot defend it using his arguments, because (d) is flawed.
Harris’ argument for the survival lottery is deeply flawed. I disagree with his argument that everyone is equal and therefore those who are selected to be killed in the lottery should be selected at random. Every life is different in societal, virtuous, and social proportions, and this causes inequalities; we cannot equate one life to one life, meaning killing one man to save one man, or even many men, does not have a net zero effect, as they are unequal. This entails that his argument (a), that we must save as many people as possible, is defeated, as if we accept that all lives are unequal, we must save the combination of lives that has the most value. Since this is just implicated by the defeat of (d), I will not be refuting this directly, and will instead just refute (d), with arguments of society, virtue, and social implication.
Firstly, societal structures destroy any semblance of equality, even in societies with de jure equality. We must create structure in society in order to have semblance of civility, but in every form…