Harris on Organ Lottery by Group 2 https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi Response to forum chair 1. What does Harris mean by the term "Survival Lottery”? What exactly is the policy regarding organ transplant which he discusses? 2. What would be the costs and benefits if this lottery policy was adopted? 3. What is the author's (Harris's) position? Does he support the policy or does he object to it? Do you agree with his view? en-us 2016-10-04 07:40:08 UTC 2016-10-11 13:42:45 UTC hello@padlet.com Question From Forum Chair s1116135 https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/128075573 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?
]]> 2016-10-04 07:40:27 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/128075573 Wong Cheung Ching s1117145 https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129485038 2. I think when we put a great emphasis on the development of the society, we are necessary to carried out this policies. When we are forced some people to give all the lotteries to the unfortunate people who have a need to change their lottery, we can see one person life can save lots of people. In fact, given the less cost, we can maximize the benefits. It is a good way to do that. However, there are some problems when we are carrying out this policies. One of the noticeable problems is that this does not respect the human right. Although it sounds rational that we are using the less costs to achieve the greatest benefits. However, regardless the outcomes of the policies, the policy is initially wrong. All of the organs are owned by us. No one even the government can get my property without my approval. How come the government to do illegal things? 
3. I agree what forum chair said, we are human not a robot or other things. I think one of the most important things to distinguish human being and things is that things are as a tool to help their owners to attain their goals. For example, the mobile phone is the tool for human to communicate with other easily, food is a thing to help human to survive in this world and the government is an organization reallocating the resources to help people to have a better life. For me, the lottery policies seems like to consider human being unfortunately chosen by the policy to be a tool to save other people or maintain their health just like pills. If the policies carried out, I cannot clearly to find the difference of human and things.]]> 2016-10-10 12:19:34 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129485038 Lam Pui Hay s1116135 https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129504314 1. I think organ lottery is assuming that the living of a sick person is the utmost priority rather than a healthy person. This is reasonable in a sense of cost-effective, however, this is not reasonable that people should be sacrificed for the sake of others without a prior permission of the one who will got sacrificed. 
2. There is a trade of immediate guaranteed productivity against a long-term not-guaranteed productivity too, where the healthy person is for sure can produce, while there is still a recovery period for patients to adapt the new organ. There are risk on organ transplant that not any organ of the same blood type, condition (healthy assumed), tissue particles can completely and most functionally be transplanted.
3. I think every person has his/her uniqueness on every single way, its not just a matter of adding one or taking one away for two, not just simple mathematics. People are somewhat irreplaceable, in terms of mind-sets and capability. Thus I do not support the organ lottery idea.]]> 2016-10-10 13:24:59 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129504314 Lam Wing Tung https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129557140 I would not support the policy of organ lottery. This advocacy sounds like quite efficient as two people would be saved and only one is sacrificed. However, I think that human lives could not be calculated just as simple mathematics. The lives of us should be more than that. Therefore, the problem is not how many people are saved and how many are sacrificed. It is the problem of how we deal with life and death.]]> 2016-10-10 16:00:18 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129557140 Lam Wing Tung https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129682466 Also, in my point of view the live and death of human should not be controlled by human beings - us. We human do not have the right to control who is going to die and who is going to prolong their lives. The case of organ lottery is exactly controlling the lives of people and choosing someone to be sacrificed for others. I don't think that anyone of us have this right to control other's lives.]]> 2016-10-11 03:42:54 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129682466 Lam Wing Tung https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129699804 However, would the forum chair like to explain what's the difference between the existing organ donation and the idea of organ lottery? Some may concern that if they join the program of organ donation, the doctor may not save them when they facing the life-or-death situation in the operations. How does this problem cause morality issues?]]> 2016-10-11 06:56:26 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129699804 Chan Chi Chung s1117152 https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129701176 2.Even it is sounded rational that sacrifice one person to save more people life because we can use less costs to achieve the benefits which are than the cost we need. However is it fair to the health person? All people have their right to determine the use of their organs which should not be controlled by any policies and force. Therefore, in my opinion, the policy cannot be established because human right is not considered in it. Death can not be controlled by anyone because it is the process that must occur in people's life and we can't predict the time of people death. Also, we can't judge that who should die or who should be alive. 
3. I also think that the author agrees the statement of achieving the greater benefits by sacrificing but he have mentioned that there is a boundary that people should not kill people to obtain the purpose of saving unless people are willing to sacrifice themselves. Also, I also agree that humanity should be considered in the policy because people have their right to own their organs. Therefore, the will of people is the most important element to save others by sacrifice because it is not fair if the donor dies after he contribute their organs the others even one life can save several people. Policy cannot force people to sacrifice themselves without considering their wills. This is the crime that the policy deprives the right of survival. ]]> 2016-10-11 07:03:35 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116135/4d25txrip2vi/wish/129701176