Raw LLM Responses

>Why is life already not a lottery? The lottery of birth decided risk factors for illnesses. Other environmental factors unluckily harmed the few who need transplants. Why cannot we skip all murky morality and arbitrary actions by declaring whoever is sick and without a transplant is the loser in the survival lottery? This is a non-argument. Letting people die when organs are available is an arbitrary action of uncertain morality. Merely "copping out" isn't a satisfactory solution. >But nonetheless, from a critical approach, almost certainly a state would have to step in to ensure, for one of many possible reasons, that there isn't unnecessary killing. Let alone the argument whether a state, if it is rooted in some social contract, may even kill or let its citizens kill another (with or without pursuing justice), the state faces other biopolitical issues with this plan, where it has, quite literally by Foucault's definition of biopower, power over who gets to live and who has to die. Creating justifications of state coercion through public health threats is not new and is not legitimate. Here, the power to destroy life is founded on the power to protect it. Right, if you think that killing is noninstrumentally wrong, then that is an answer to the proposal. But the state is really only putting someone at a risk of death, so you have to explain why we should treat this case differently than instituting a draft or hiring someone for a dangerous job. >Further troubling questions arise. Who will make the algorithm to select the would-be harvested? How can we ensure that it, and subsequent updates to the database, will remain unbiased toward any social class, ethnic group, sexual-orientation community, race, etc., even if only institutionally so? Who will oversee this system? The proposed system says it will prohibit transplants to those "who brought their misfortunes upon themselves," but what happen if social forces characterize unjustly what constitutes b