https://padlet.com/s1116997/yzpjcl3h7rp2 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 2016-10-02 04:19:29 UTC 2016-10-04 06:53:48 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Watchclock.png s1116707 https://padlet.com/s1116997/yzpjcl3h7rp2/wish/128049525 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 03:18:47 UTC https://padlet.com/s1116997/yzpjcl3h7rp2/wish/128049525