Summary Of Survival Lottery By John Harris

In “Survival Lottery” by John Harris (1), Harris argued that if two people are on a transplant list, Z and Y, with no available organs that it is still neglect and murder for the doctors to not kill innocent person A to save their lives. Harris believes most philosophers would go against this idea because of the moral difference in killing compared to letting one die. This would rule out killing A to save Y and Z because of the obligation to not kill trumps saving a life. The argument that A is innocent and therefore should not die is shut down by Z and Y because they also are innocent in the sense of not having preemptive actions that lead to their illness and eventual death. Z and Y were unfortunate in becoming deathly ill where A was not,

Doctors would disagree with the system because although it would be murder if a doctor did not perform that which they were capable of to save a life, killing the innocent to save others would go against a doctor’s job which is to not intentionally kill. Harris proposed society could call the process of selection for donating organs to be called “giving life” as a suitable euphemism for easier implementation. Although donor deaths would increase, the net rate of deaths due to this and those of untimely, unfortunate deaths would ultimately decrease according to the argument made by Harris. Harris theoretically talks about a newly discovered planet that has a society like that of Earth but with the lottery system in place. Harris argues that those who deny giving their life for others would be considered murders and the planet would have no right to life or freedom but a duty to maximize the number of people who may

As much as Z and Y claim to not intentionally kill A but rather just have a couple organs to preserve their lives and in the process if A dies then so be it, this argument is invalid for they are receiving organs required to live causing A to ultimately die every time proving intent to murder an innocent life necessary for their survival. Harris fails to acknowledge that the system presented by Z and Y assumes individuals have a duty to be Good Samaritans(GS) that are required to make large sacrifices for others and will participate in voluntary euthanasia but face the consequences of being accused as murderers if they choose to not participate in the system. Judith Thompson argues in “A Defense of Abortion” that we ought to be Minimally Decent Samaritans(MDS) where individuals should help save another’s life without significant sacrifice, like dying, even if the person has no right to the assistance(2). If individuals are expected and required to participate in the system, this creates involuntary euthanasia that is wrong to impose on healthy individuals with futures ahead of them. Calling an innocent individual who doesn’t want his/her future to be stripped from them a murderer for not participating in a program that risks their own life is wrong of Z and Y. As misfortunate as the situation is for Z and Y, they have no right