I want to explore a situation assuming we have "perfectly" instituted the Survival Lottery. In particular, the decision to use third parties for organ harvesting and not those who are already in need of organs. I am not going to address the morality of any other action associated with the Lottery.
We have persons A, X, Y, and Z.
Persons X, Y, and Z are all in need of an organ transplant. Without one, they will die.
Person A does not need an organ transplant to live.
All persons have organs that are compatible with each other.
With each person, I will associate two numbers.
The first is their Value, or how much their life is worth. Because all people have the same Value, we can give all people the same number. Every person's Value will be equal. We can say that each person has a Value equal to 1.
The second is that person's Cost. Cost is measured as the Value that was sacrificed in order to save that person's life. Alternatively, it is the measure of how many people had to die in order for that person to live. For example, If three people sacrificed themselves so that another may live, then the survivor's Cost would be equal to 3. The Cost does not have to be a whole number. If one person dies so that two people may live, then both of the survivors would have Costs equal to 0.5.
When there are multiple people, we can add these numbers together. If there are five people in a room, then we can say together, they have 5 Value. If two of those people had separate cases where a person sacrificed their lives for their sake, and everyone else did not, then the total Cost of those five people would be 2.
Intuitively, it appears that it would be preferable if Cost were a smaller number than Value.
We have seen that Harris rejects the objection to 3rd party involvement. He claims that it would be unfair to deliberately select "life-givers" among those who are in need of organs. We would be biased against the "unlucky". I think he is wrong, and that using dying people's organs would save more lives, (provided that the health of the harvestee would have no impact on the transplant).
What I want to show is that choosing to use the organs of those who are dying of organ failure, would be better, save more lives, than using an otherwise healthy person's.
Case 1.
A is picked by the lottery to be killed in order to save the lives of Y and Z. X is ignored in this case and his fate will be determined by other circumstances.
Person A - Dead
Person Y - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost.
Person Z - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost
Total - 2 Value, 1 Cost
In this case, at the cost of 1 human life we saved 2 lives.
Case 2.
X is deliberately chosen to be killed to save the lives of Y and Z. A is left alone. The outcome of this case will be:
Person A - 1 Value, 0 Cost
Person X - Dead
Person Y - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost
Person Z - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost
Total - 3 Value, 1 Cost
In this case, we achieved a higher Value, for the same Cost. We were more efficient when it came to saving lives.
You may argue that Person A is alive as a direct result of Person X being chosen instead. Even if that were the case, which it could be, the Value of Person X's life would then be split three ways. Persons A, Y and Z would all have Costs of 1/3 and the total Cost would not change.
It could be said that comparing these two cases would be improper without considering X's numbers in case 1. So let's do that. If X dies, then that would clearly make case 1 worse than case 2. You would rather have 3 people live than only 2. If X is to survive however, then both cases would have equal value: 3. However, the total Costs would be different. X can only survive if another person dies to give up his organs (in this scenario). If X survives, then it would necessarily mean that X has incurred some Cost greater than 0. Thus the total Cost in case 1 would be higher than in case 2. It is impossible for case 1 to have a higher Value/Cost ratio than case 2.
What does it matter that case 2 achieves a higher Value/Cost ratio than case 1?
It matters because the sacrifice of a single life can save more lives when the value/cost ratio is higher than when it is lower. If it is more morally right to chose the option that saves more lives, then it would be morally correct to chose the option with a higher Value/Cost ratio.
Therefore, when determining which person to use for harvesting organs, it would be morally right to select ones who are already in need of an organ.
What does everyone else think? Whose organs should we harvest?
We have persons A, X, Y, and Z.
Persons X, Y, and Z are all in need of an organ transplant. Without one, they will die.
Person A does not need an organ transplant to live.
All persons have organs that are compatible with each other.
With each person, I will associate two numbers.
The first is their Value, or how much their life is worth. Because all people have the same Value, we can give all people the same number. Every person's Value will be equal. We can say that each person has a Value equal to 1.
The second is that person's Cost. Cost is measured as the Value that was sacrificed in order to save that person's life. Alternatively, it is the measure of how many people had to die in order for that person to live. For example, If three people sacrificed themselves so that another may live, then the survivor's Cost would be equal to 3. The Cost does not have to be a whole number. If one person dies so that two people may live, then both of the survivors would have Costs equal to 0.5.
When there are multiple people, we can add these numbers together. If there are five people in a room, then we can say together, they have 5 Value. If two of those people had separate cases where a person sacrificed their lives for their sake, and everyone else did not, then the total Cost of those five people would be 2.
Intuitively, it appears that it would be preferable if Cost were a smaller number than Value.
We have seen that Harris rejects the objection to 3rd party involvement. He claims that it would be unfair to deliberately select "life-givers" among those who are in need of organs. We would be biased against the "unlucky". I think he is wrong, and that using dying people's organs would save more lives, (provided that the health of the harvestee would have no impact on the transplant).
What I want to show is that choosing to use the organs of those who are dying of organ failure, would be better, save more lives, than using an otherwise healthy person's.
Case 1.
A is picked by the lottery to be killed in order to save the lives of Y and Z. X is ignored in this case and his fate will be determined by other circumstances.
Person A - Dead
Person Y - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost.
Person Z - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost
Total - 2 Value, 1 Cost
In this case, at the cost of 1 human life we saved 2 lives.
Case 2.
X is deliberately chosen to be killed to save the lives of Y and Z. A is left alone. The outcome of this case will be:
Person A - 1 Value, 0 Cost
Person X - Dead
Person Y - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost
Person Z - 1 Value, 0.5 Cost
Total - 3 Value, 1 Cost
In this case, we achieved a higher Value, for the same Cost. We were more efficient when it came to saving lives.
You may argue that Person A is alive as a direct result of Person X being chosen instead. Even if that were the case, which it could be, the Value of Person X's life would then be split three ways. Persons A, Y and Z would all have Costs of 1/3 and the total Cost would not change.
It could be said that comparing these two cases would be improper without considering X's numbers in case 1. So let's do that. If X dies, then that would clearly make case 1 worse than case 2. You would rather have 3 people live than only 2. If X is to survive however, then both cases would have equal value: 3. However, the total Costs would be different. X can only survive if another person dies to give up his organs (in this scenario). If X survives, then it would necessarily mean that X has incurred some Cost greater than 0. Thus the total Cost in case 1 would be higher than in case 2. It is impossible for case 1 to have a higher Value/Cost ratio than case 2.
What does it matter that case 2 achieves a higher Value/Cost ratio than case 1?
It matters because the sacrifice of a single life can save more lives when the value/cost ratio is higher than when it is lower. If it is more morally right to chose the option that saves more lives, then it would be morally correct to chose the option with a higher Value/Cost ratio.
Therefore, when determining which person to use for harvesting organs, it would be morally right to select ones who are already in need of an organ.
What does everyone else think? Whose organs should we harvest?
No comments:
Post a Comment