<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>3. Harris on Organ Lottery by </title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici</link>
      <description>1. What does Harris mean by the term &quot;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&#39;s (Harris&#39;s) position? Does he support the policy or does he object to it? Do you agree with his view?</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2016-10-10 16:02:28 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2016-11-04 14:36:30 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Forum chair</title>
         <author>s1116957</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/129559268</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong><br></strong><br></div><div>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.<br>Therefore, you can see that survival lottery is aimed at saving the two sick people by sacrificed one healthy person.<br><br>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.<br>In the view of benefits, according to the utilitarianism, more people can live in the world, maximize the populations at the result.<br><br>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?</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-10-10 16:08:32 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/129559268</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Comments (So Wing Yin</title>
         <author>s1116957</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/129560379</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>I agree with the author that it is not recommended to have the survival lottery. Without doubt, sacrificing one person's life to save two people is maximizing the total happiness of all people. However, the one who is drawn is totally innocent. He or she is not supposed to be killed even though two people can be saved. Also, I believe that people's lives should not be controlled by a lottery.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-10-10 16:13:01 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/129560379</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Not really a fair system (Yeung Tsz Kwan)</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/129681538</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>For the lottery policy, everyone are having the same probability of being sacrificed. Sick people can also get a chance of living. It seems very fair for all stakeholders.<br>However, it is unfair for the people who are picked up. Their life are controlled by others, but not themselves. Just like the forum chair said there are side effects toward society because of the complaints of people. They will be resentful to the society. It may get a worse consequence. Therefore, I am disagree of having this policy.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-10-11 03:34:50 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/129681538</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Comments (Leung Yan Yuk)</title>
         <author>s1116957</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/132540496</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>I agree with Harris. Certainly，if we intentionally kill a healthy person, when doing so will save at least&nbsp;two unhealthy people who would otherwise have died, consequently more people will&nbsp;live. However, it is not fair for those "winners" of survival Lottery. Their lives seems not belong to their own but controlled by others. Moreover, killing is worse than letting die, so it's better to let&nbsp; those patients die.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2016-10-23 13:47:38 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/s1116957/f7fu13tz5ici/wish/132540496</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
