The Heart Activity left me perplexed as to what would have been the most logical answer.

At

first glance, Roman became the first and most obvious choice to receive the heart. It was

reasonable to assume, that by virtue of helping him, you indirectly help thousands of others as a

result. Although Roman seemed reasonable, and I expected for my group to agree, their choice

was to save Carla above everyone else. Their argument was based solely on her age and the

bright future she was promised. Out of all the others she and Roman became the most debated

for whom would inherit the heart first. In the end we compromised, placing Carla second only to

Roman. Although I would have preferred to have placed her last, time was at the essence. Had

it gone my way I would have picked on the numbers rather than the person itself. That would

have been the most logical way of deciding.

The activity was both interesting and challenging. It raised questions about morality and what it

is that we value. When it came to Cheryl or Andrea, neither was more logical than the other.

Which ended up raising more questions about how to best determine heart inheritance. Things

like deciding between a single promising life and whether that life is worth more than removing

the father of four.

I do think there is a moral responsibility in choosing logically over personal preference. It would

also be reasonable to assume that no one person should get to decide such life and death

choices. Considering all the factors that go into making such decisions, I would personally trust

more a choice based upon order of request or simply by a lottery. Anything that would remove

emotional and biased choices would be the most morally acceptable way of choice.