# data[].attributes.body
The "lottery" sounds like a good system to save as many lives as possible, but the sacrifice of the chosen person to be killed to provide their organs seems a little outrageous. Why sacrifice a healthy and happy person for their organs to save others? This person has the right to live, and therefore the "lottery" does not seem moral and ethical to me. Just because they were chosen by random to sacrifice, I don't believe this action is justifiable. This also violates the individuals right to live.
I would suggest a different system, allowing and encouraging the "near-death" people to be given the choice to donate their organs to the needed once they pass. This way, I believe does not violate anybody's rights and it is more ethical.

Cho Sung Eun Sam

# data[].attributes.headline
Hi everyone. I am the teaching assistant who monitors and evaluates your discussions. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hi everyone. I am the teaching assistant who monitors and evaluates your discussions. 

# data[].attributes.body
It seems that some of you reject policy of "Survival Lottery.” I am glad to discover that your positions ground on some noble ideas, such as fairness. Those are good point which can contribute to further discussion.

However, the main concept you appeal to is not fairness but human rights. Fairness or equality are fundamental ground to underpin well-being of human.Nobody can use other human beings as means to achieve their own ends, according to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nevertheless, the lottery betray the treaties of Human rights which is universally accepted. It sacrifices others live involuntarily and becomes deterrent of future human well-being. Above is the sample argument why we should refute the adoption of lottery in virtue of human rights.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Janice and Resh's point. What is the meaning of living? What is their ultimate goal after they born? Is just pursuing a longer life? If the organ lottery become true, the moment you come to the world, you already have a probability of choosing to be the unlucky one to transplant their own organ. Therefore, human may not have passion to pursue their dream or achieve their own goal since they don't know when they will die, maybe tomorrow, whole city become dark and depressed. Even it will carry out some social problem as Cherry have said.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with Janice in the fact that people will not treasure their own lives if they knew someone else's organs would be sacrificed to further extend their life on earth, and the fact that the healthy people are just alive to be sacrificed for the dying population. In my opinion we should treasure our own lives, to be honest we have no right to get involved in other peoples lives, if they are going to die, then let it be so. All these problems arise from people getting involved in other peoples lives, weather it is to help or not, what does it matter if it is 'good' or 'bad'? Let people live how they want to live and allow nature to take its course on them.

Resh

# data[].attributes.body
The organ lottery policy will definitely create disputes between different groups of people in the society, differentiating us from one another and stimulating hatred. With hatred, there will be tonnes of problems emerging and deteriorating, such as discrimination and crimes.

- Cherry

# data[].attributes.body
I absolutely agree that saving more lives should not be the only goal for human, considering the importance of morality, which is a crucial value to humanity.  Sure, the organ lottery can save more lives. But we are sacrificing those who did not have to die, so the organ lottery is basically murdering people. Even though it is for a good purpose, does it mean it's less sinful?

- Cherry

# data[].attributes.body
Referring to the point that the forum chair have said, about one of the cost of this lottery policy is morality problem, I think it is the most crucial point. The society have a moral standard regarding human lives and values, which keeps the society in order and keeps people under control. With this organ lottery policy, it will twists people's moral value.

- Cherry

# data[].attributes.body
I absolutely agree on the point how survival is not the major reason to live. However, i do not agree that this case of utilitarianism will help facilitate the running of the society. With the organ donation policy, there may be outrage caused by citizens and the society may not live with peace as people are constantly feared of being the chosen one to sacrifice organs.

-Janice

# data[].attributes.body
If survival lottery is a real thing, people would just rely on it fully and not know how to treasure their own lives, as they can always depend on other people's lives if they have an organ failure. People would not lead a healthy lifestyle (eg. smoking, drinking alcohol). People who get picked randomly would be a perfect example of the movie Hunger Games, where innocent people get picked to be the victim. The whole aim of saving dead people with killing healthy living people is ironically unjustified.

-Janice

# data[].attributes.body
Fairness is a great factor for consideration in survival lottery. Are people just born to be sacrificed for dying people? What is the great purpose of living if it just means to extend your life to the fullest on a countable manner. In this case, it shows that people prioritize on prolonging lives numerically (eg. more years of living), forgetting that everyone's lives matter to them, forgetting the true utmost purpose of living- which is the meaning of life.

-Janice

# data[].attributes.body
Forum Chair

1.  Survival Lottery is assuming that there are two patients who are waiting for organs to save there lives, however there are no suitable organ from died body. Therefore it suggested that to put all the people who are healthy in a draw and pick up randomly in order to save their life, otherwise they will die. The one who picked up would then be killed and his organs may transplant to as many patients as possible while organ transplant procedure suppose have done perfectly.
Therefore, you can see that survival lottery is aimed at saving the two sick people by sacrificed one healthy person.

2. We should discuss the costs which bring from this lottery policy. Firstly, it would carry out the morality problem. Although more people could be saved with the least lives, it is not fair to those being sacrificed. Secondly, it brings bad effects towards society, the elderly may adopt policy to prolong their own lives, also the society would start to create too much terror and distress, also become secure since people may wrote a status with some meaning of death. Discriminations may exist too as the patients are less worth of respect.
In the view of benefits, according to the utilitarianism, more people can live in the world, maximize the populations at the result.

3. The author holds an objective attitude to determine the effectiveness of this policy. He agrees that it is effective to save the most lives by sacrificing the least . However, he also suggests that humanity should be considered as he mentioned about the six-commandment- no killing. We do agree with his view on the effectiveness of the policy, there is no doubt that utilitarianism could be carried to save more lives. But morality is more important. Utilitarianism is a mechanism that facilitates society running. On the other hand, we are human but not robot, we have benevolence and sense of compassion, we should not just think of how to survive because survival is not what life means. We live to create wonderful things, like helping others. In reality, there are even some heroes sacrifice themselves to save the others. This is what life means. Even if we are saved by sacrificing the others, what do our saved lives mean?