Essay On Survival Lottery

I would object to the idea of “The Survival Lottery”. The proposal of the survival lottery mainly centres on the claim that there is no difference between killing and letting die, and that leaving Y and Z to die without any interventions would be the same as murdering them. Thus, instead of killing both Y and Z, the doctor should kill A, a third-party, and save both Y and Z's lives, because such action would result in a total of one death instead of two. Since it would be begging the question to argue whether if there is a difference between killing and letting die, we, at this time being, can assume that they are the same. It may seem that utilitarians ought to be in favour of this proposal as it result in maximum utility. However, my concern is that the calculation in total amount of happiness might not be as simple as it appears to be.
Y and Z may argue that the pain of killing A is obviously much less than killing both Y and Z, which result in an extra death. Yet, this calculation does not take into consideration of the massive disturbance of the society in general if the lottery system is in tact. Since every persons fundamentally has a desire to live and feel secure, this means that with the lottery system, every single healthy person alive would be living in fear and uncertainty every day of either they will be forced to give up some of their organs, or their lives, without wills to do so. This loss of security or terror in society is a form of pain that is not taken into the calculation, and this effect is too massive as it would disturb the great amount of populations, and thus, outweighs the happiness that is resulted from saving the lives of Y and