philosophy paper

User Generated

Tenprnve

Humanities

Description

Write three to four pages (900 - 1200 words) on one of the following topics. Be sure to follow the outline I offer in class. Take a stand on the issue, arguing for or against a specific claim. While this is not a research paper, you’ll need to employ and respond to the writers we have examined in class. I want your view on the matter — though a view informed by the reading.

This paper counts for a substantial portion of your grade. You’ll want to do a thoughtful job. Don’t wait until the last minute. And while I hope this goes without saying, to reiterate once again: any evidence that work has been directly appropriated from another source without attribution will receive a zero on the assignment.

One-sided, double-spaced.

Answer the question and use the outline I provide.

1. Is Harris’ proposal for a survival lottery defensible?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

PAPER(TR).pdf (1) @ Q PAPER OUTLINE 1. THESIS 2. DEFEND YOUR THESIS a) Argument One - elaboration b) Argument Two - elaboration 3. OBJECTIONS / COUNTER-ARGUMENTS 4. RESPOND TO OBJECTIONS 5. CONCLUSION / REVISE YOUR THESIS
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Thank you for working with me.

Surname 1
Name:
Lecturer:
Course:
Date:
Survival Lottery
Introduction
According to the Harris imaginations, the world is an arena in which transplant processes
have been perfected; therefore, an individual needing a transplant can undergo the operation
successfully as there are appropriate organs available. However, in case there are no particular
organs, the medical practitioner will let the patient lose their life. In a case involving two
patients, Y, and Z, the two do not like the inescapable result. They argue on utilitarian grounds
that if an individual is killed and their organs removed to be used, they can be saved and that it
would be better for one person to die as opposed to both losing their lives. Besides, the two
suggest that if the practitioner does not perform their request that will be accountable for their
death. Y and Z base their argument on the fact that, in other areas of life there are guiding
principles of saving most of the people’s lives as much as possible; thus there should be a
stipulation to prohibit taking away of innocent souls. The paper provides a discussion on whether
the Harris proposal is defensible.
Argument One
The two individual do not agree that an average person, for example, person A as Harris
calls, is considered more innocent than they are and making a preference in the life of ‘A’ over
theirs is similar to making a choice on fortunate over the unfortunate. Their argument reveals that

Surname 2
avoiding considering their scheme will result in the death of relatively more innocent lives than it
would be if the system were effected as, according to the agreement, the two are also innocent.
As a way of creating a fair and just scheme, they make a proposal of a lottery that in a way
would allay the fears of the society, as they would not just be hauled off as they pass the health
center. To make a choice for the person to die for the other, Harris recommends the use of a
central computer random selection for a suitable donor from the public of a compatible organ. I
tend to think that Harris is not serious while making this recommendation and attempts to
support it by saying that individual who will object being selected by the lottery would be
regarded as murderers.
Argument Two
In the real sense, many perfectly rational arguments are not given treatment that the two
patients that are Y and Z tend to believe are theirs to obtain. Over the previous years,
utilitarianism has provided people with shining beacons of light to anchor themselves on certain
matters, but they eventually fell too short of the people’s expectations. If the same principle is to
be regarded in other cases, it may lead to the killing of innocent individuals in the aim of
appeasing a mob or else expose someone to torture in a vain attempt of collecting some
information. Therefore, considering maximization of happiness, it is not a worthy objective
because it is not always clear that will result in satisfying outcomes. Besides, it is possibly for
one to argue that no individual should ever intentionally think of seeking to reap from the loss of
life by another person. A dead body of one person should be utilized fully to sustain the live
many of the other people for a couple of days, but the contemporary world is never ready to
advocate for cannibalism as a method for tasty treats in case time becomes considerably harsh.

Surname 3
Objections/ counter arguments
If an individual perceives that utility is a tool that can bring a solution to certain issues,
there might have many problems, especially in the implementation of the lottery provisions. This
is because the utility has the potential of bringing particular outcomes, which are contrary to the
social welfare systems. For instance, moving the consequences of a brilliant ideology from the
incautious persons at large, the scheme does not honor the natural deterrent to such unwise
indulgence. Harris is quite sure that in his proposal, this is not considered. He argues of having
an exception for the people who have brought their condition on themselves, as it will not be fair
enough to permit some individual, who have caused misfortune on themselves to benefit from
the lottery. In this case, he uses an example of heavy drinkers and smoker, as they...


Anonymous
I was stuck on this subject and a friend recommended Studypool. I'm so glad I checked it out!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags