How Is Survival Lottery Ethical

A high society that gambles with lives

My paper argues whether or not the survival lottery saves more lives by just two simple beliefs. Kantian beliefs being the first one which is the belief that it all depends on if the jobs are fulfilled. This agrees with other theories such as the deontic theory that states that you have to uphold your jobs and protect the rights of every single individual no matter if it leads to the worst possible outcome. The second one being Utilitarianism, which is the firm belief that it is perfectly right to do what will possibly bring the best outcome and what will bring the most happiness. The scenario that is given is that X and Y need the organs that patient A has. The unethical way that the survival lottery suggest is that A, which is the healthy one, should be killed so that patient X and Y can live. This is where Kantian ethics disagrees with Utilitarianism views because Utilitarianism says that it is morally good and okay. Through what I have read, I have made the personal decision that the survival lottery violates and disrespects the individuals’ rights’ as a human being and should never be used to judge an overall outcome of
The first priority of any circumstance and the greatest value is human rights. No one should be treated as just a means, each person should be given a sense of humanity. As he announces in this, “So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as and withal, never as means only.” (Vaughn, p.105). Kant’s view of punishment is that any crime no matter what it is, they should not be punished for justice. As he says in this, “Kant thinks that criminals should be punished only because they perpetrated crimes; the public good is irrelevant. In addition, Kant thinks that the central principle of punishment should fit the crime.” (Vaughn,