Pfeifer 1

Evan Pfeifer

PHIL 2310-702

Mr. Wolf

3 April 2017

Critique of The Survival Lottery

This is a critique of Harris piece, The Survival Lottery, in which he proposes the idea

of a lottery system that would sacrifice one life to save two. This is strictly a utilitarian idea, as it

seeks to create the maximum amount of happiness, even if someone dies. This concept does not

consider the individuality of people, as it randomly selects someone to kill even if these actions

are for the greater good. While Harris himself does not argue for or against the lottery concept,

he does discuss the issues of it: one such issue is about the respect for individuals in the lottery

system and how their rights as a human should, or should not, be appreciated.

The idea of The Survival Lottery stems from this situation: there are two patients, Y

and Z, who need organ transplants if they are to live (81). There are no spare organs for the two,

so they hypothesize that [the doctors] could kill a healthy, innocent person, named A, and use As

organs in the procedures. This would save Y and Z at the cost of A. Y and Zs idea stems from

utilitarianism, which would support killing A because it would save Y and Z, and likely produce

more happiness than if only A was alive. While Y and Z acknowledge that A does not deserve

death, they believe they are innocent for the same reason. This puts the responsibility on the

doctor.

The issue now concerns the power of a doctor to save ones patients. Y and Z explain that

If a doctor refuses to treat a patient, with the result that the patient dies, he has killed that patient

as sure as shooting (82). In this scenario, transplant procedures have been perfected, so Y and Z
 Pfeifer 2

will live. If the doctors refuse to kill A, they are essentially killing Y and Z because they are not

taking action. However, the doctors might respond that they are not required to kill in order to

save, as well as there being no rule that says doctors should kill the innocent. Furthermore,

Harris explains that society would be affected by fear of being taken by a doctor and being killed

is the terror worth saving two people at the price of one?

To avoid public panic, Y and Z suggest the idea of a lottery system. Whenever doctors

have two or more dying patients who could be savedthey can ask a central computer to pick a

numberof a suitable donor (83). This idea leads Harris to conceptualize a planet on which the

lottery system is the cornerstone of society. In such a world, the right to life and freedom does

not exist, or at least is not a concern; the only concern is that as many people as possible are able

to live happy lives. Anyone who does not give their life to the Lottery might as well be regarded

as a murderer. One needs to understand that their society has developed alongside the Lottery to

the point which it is simply another government mechanism in daily life. Their perception of the

lottery might be completely different from its perception on earth, good or bad.

However positive the lottery idea might be, there are still issues with it. Y and Z concede

that people who smoke or drink heavily, among other things, would have an unfair advantage on

the system because they would be benefit from a new liver or set of lungs, while a healthy,

innocent person would be killed so they can continue their unhealthy habits (82-83). How is it

fair for the healthy person to be killed? Unless there is a solution for this, the system would favor

those who bring misfortune onto themselves. Furthermore, what if someone does not wish to

participate in the Lottery? There is no discussion of how the rights of the individual will be

respected, much less acknowledged. Individuality is a key part of many societies on earth how

would the lottery system avoid this problem? Another matter is the difference between killing
 Pfeifer 3

and letting die, or the difference between one man dying or a different person dying - being

chosen to be killed might not sit well with some people. From a utilitarian perspective, there are

only minimally clear morally correct answers.

Harris last point discusses the use of a third person in the organ donor triangle: Why

should we not give Xs heart to Ythe same number of lives being thereby preserved and no one

elses life set at risk? (85). Y and Z claim that this impedes their equality as humans; that to

restrict access to other human donors is to make Y and Z their own, unfortunate social class

discrepancy that could be subject to discrimination. Harris clarifies, If their lottery scheme is

adoptedtheir chances of dying are no greater and no less than those of any other participant in

the lottery whose number may come up (86). The scheme that Y and Z created provides that all

people, not just healthy ones, are in the lottery - the dying themselves should be prime candidates

to give their functional organs to others. To conclude, Harris reminds the reader that

implementing the lottery would pose many challenges (87). Beyond that, there is a possibility

that it could be misused by someone to harm specific people. However, Harris warns that failing

to implement the lottery could lead to more death than if the lottery was set in place.

Harris concept of the survival lottery is full of many good ideas that could benefit

society, though there are also many holes that damage its legitimacy. I find it difficult to accept

the lottery system when the society I, and many others, live in is largely an individualist one if

the idea was made public, it would quickly be shut down in one way or another because the

method of selecting a donor is completely random. This violates human rights by disregarding

any respect for individuals that do not wish to participate. However, western society is very

different from many cultures of the world; some collectivist cultures may favor it.
 Pfeifer 4

Recall Harris idea of a planet that used the lottery system. It is reasonable that many

people on earth would not want to live in such a world, but one should understand that the

inhabitants of the other planet might even enjoy the lottery system. They might revere donors as

winners or champions who give their life for others. Because other societies may enjoy the

lottery system, it stands to reason that many societies on earth would enjoy it as well. When I

think of the Survival Lottery, I am usually reminded of The Hunger Games, which is set in a

world that utilizes a controversial form of entertainment that pits people against each other in a

fight to the death (Collins). Some cultures in that world accept it while others do not. In terms of

the Survival Lottery, it might be beneficial to implement incentives for participants so that

everyone is given a choice, though the donor pool would not be as large.

But even if the public does support the lottery, there are still many dangers. What if the

keys to the system fell into the hands of someone who would misuse it? This danger is best

illustrated in House of Cards, when President Underwood is moved up the organ donor list to

receive a transplant that he otherwise would not have (House of Cards). This means several other

people died so he could live. When power over the Lottery is abused, it could begin killing

specific people; at that point humans are playing God, which is an entirely controversial matter

on its own.

While The Survival Lottery proposes the outline of a system that might work, it fails to

eliminate all the negative consequences and issues that would arise from its use. Without being

able to distinguish murder and allowing death, to make exceptions for uninterested individuals,

and to define eligible donor pools for the unhealthy, putting the Lottery system into effect would

simply cause chaos. However, Harris is discussing very controversial topics. Without answers to
 Pfeifer 5

them, his ideas are not able to take form. Someday, when the rights of individuals can be agreed

upon and the Lottery receives a full proposal, it might be able to work.

Works Cited

Collins, Suzanne. The Hunger Games. London: Scholastic, 2015. Print.

Harris, John. The survival lottery. London: Cambridge U Press, 1975. Print.

House of Cards. Dir. Beau Williman. Perf. Kevin Spacey. Netflix. Netflix, 4 Mar. 2016. Web. 2

Apr. 2017.