Harris_Survival_Lottery

Introduction to the Survival Lottery

• Author: John Harris

• Published in Philosophy, Jan. 1975, Vol. 50, No. 191 (pp. 81-87)

• Source: Cambridge University Press, JSTOR

The Concept of the Survival Lottery

• Hypothetical Scenario: If organ transplant procedures are perfected, two patients can be saved if a healthy individual provides their organs.

• Key Distinction:

  • If patients Y and Z have no healthy organs available, their deaths are seen as a natural cause.

  • If doctors refuse to provide organs from a healthy person, accusations of responsibility for the patients’ deaths arise.

The Ethical Argument

• Many philosophers argue against killing to save lives, citing a moral difference between killing and letting die.

  • Clough's Dictum: 'Thou shalt not kill but need'st not strive officiously to keep alive.'

• Y and Z argue that refusing to save them directly through killing expresses preference for the innocent’s life over theirs.

• They contend their death due to organ failure is as valid a consideration as A's innocence.

The Proposal of the Survival Lottery

• Y and Z’s response to injustice: propose a lottery system to ensure fair selection of organ donors.

• Lottery Structure:

  • Everyone receives a lottery number.

  • Random selection determines who will be sacrificed for the benefit of others when no organs are available.

• Intended outcome: A systematic approach to minimize untimely deaths, ensuring societal health.

Ethical Implications of the Lottery Scheme

• The society described respects the collective welfare over individual rights: no absolute right to life.

  • Exception Considered: Avoid sacrificing those whose circumstances are self-inflicted.

• Counterargument: Resistance based on fear of arbitrary death sentences or moral decay in society.

• Evaluation of Security: Having a lottery could paradoxically create a safer society than the current random threats.

Objections to the Lottery

• Resistance based on:

  • The individuality of persons deemed interchangeable in randomization.

  • Ethical concerns about 'playing God' and moral implications of orchestrating deaths.

• The lottery does not change the essence of death; thus, some argue it lacks moral integrity.

• Critiques highlight the discomfort with treating the dying as expendable.

Right of Self-Defense

• The principle of self-defense complicates the moral calculus of the lottery.

• If Y and Z argue for their survival at the cost of another, opponents might impose a reciprocal obligation.

• Calls for each individual's right to refuse sacrifice challenge the viability of the lottery.

The Role of Third Parties in Moral Calculations

• Arguments against including third parties in organ donation (e.g., directly swapping organs).

• The survival lottery does not unfairly discriminate against Y and Z but rather promotes equal opportunity for all individuals, including healthy ones.

• Addressing the question of what constitutes 'dying' adds complexity to decision-making.

Conclusion: Examining Morality and Practicality

• The survival lottery poses challenging moral questions concerning intimacy, control, and empathy in medical ethics.

• Y and Z advocate for the lottery as it represents a humane alternative amidst the distress of organ failure.

• The practicality of instituting such a system involves significant societal change and moral reflection on existing beliefs about body autonomy and life preservation.

• The ultimate question remains whether society values individual rights over collective survival in medical ethics.