Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 “THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER”

Funding for this program was guaranteed by: Additional funding provided by This is a course about Justice and we beginwith a fib suppose you’re the move of a trolley car, and your trolley car is obstruction downthe trail at sixty miles per hour and at the end of the racetrack you noticefive works “workin on” the track you tried to stop but you can’t your brakes don’t work you feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five works they will all die let’s assume you know that for sure and so you feel helpless until you notice that there is off to the right a area road at the end of that road there’s one worker working on track you’re steering wheel parts so you can turn the trolley car if you want to onto this side track killing the one but saving the five.Here’s our first question what’s the right thing to do? What would you do? Let’s take a poll, how many would turn the trolley car onto the side track? How many wouldn’t? How many would go straight ahead keep your hands up, those of you who’d go straightahead. A handful of people would, the vast majoritywould turn let’s examine first now we need to begin to investigate the reasonswhy you think it’s the right thing to do. Let’s begin withthose in the majority, who would turn to go onto side track? Why would you do it, what would be your conclude? Who’s willing to volunteer a intellect? Go ahead, stand up. Because it can’t be right to kill five peoplewhen you can only kill one person instead. it wouldn’t be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead that’s a good reason that’s a good reason who else? does everybody agree with that reason? go ahead. Well I was thinking it was the same reason it was on 9/11 we regard the people who flew the plane who wing the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to kill the people on theplane and not kill more beings in big-hearted buildings.So the principle there was the same on 9/11 it’s tragic situation, but better to kill one so that five canlive is that the reason most of you have, thoseof you who would turn, yes? Let’s examine now from those in the minority those who wouldn’t turn. Well I think that same type of mentality thatjustifies genocide and totalitarianism in order to save one type of race youwipe out the other. so what the hell is you do in this case? You would to avoid the repugnances of carnage you would disintegrate into the five and kill them? Apparently yes. okay who else? That’s a brave ask, thank you. Let’s consider another trolley car suit and see whether those of you in the majority want to adhere to the principle, better that one should die so that fiveshould live. This time you’re not the motorist of the trolleycar, you’re an spectator standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track and down the track comes a trolley car at the end of the way are five employees the dampers don’t work the trolley car is about to careen into thefive and kill them and now you’re not the move you really feel helpless until you notice standing next to you leaning over the connect is it highly overweight man.And you could give him a knock he would fall over the aqueduct onto the track claim in accordance with the rules of the trolley car he would die but he would spare the five. Now, how many would propagandize the overweight serviceman over the bridge? Raise your hands. How numerous wouldn’t? Most people wouldn’t. Here’s the self-evident question, what became of the principle better to save five men even if it meanssacrificing one, what became of the principal that almost everyone endorsed in the first case I need to hear from someone who was in themajority in both cases is how do you explain the difference betweenthe two? The second one I guess involves anactive choice of pushing a person and down which I guess that such person or persons himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all and so to choose on his behalf I predict to involve him in something that he otherwise wouldhave this escaped is I approximate more than what you have in the first case where the three defendants, the driver and the two mounts of works are already I predicts in this situation.But the chap succeeding, the one on the trackoff to the side he didn’t choose to sacrifice his life anymore than the overweight guy did, did he? That’s true, but he was on the roads. this person was on the connection. Go ahead, you can come back if you crave. Alright, it’s a hard question but you did well you did very well it’s ahard question. who else can find a way of agreeing the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes? Well I guess in the first case where you have the one work and the five it’s a choice between those two, and you have to make a certain preference and parties are going to die because of the trolley car not certainly because of your direct actions.The trolley car is a runway, thing and it is required to fix in a split second choice whereas propagandizing the fatty humankind over is an actualact of slaughter on your segment you have control over that whereas you may not have command over the trolley car.So I think that it’s a slightly different situation. Alright who has a reply? Is that, who has a reply to that? no that was good, who has a way who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this? I don’t think that’s a very good reason becauseyou choose either way you have to choose who diesbecause you either choose to turn and kill a person which is an act of awareness thought to turn, or you choose to push the overweight husband over which is also an active conscious activity so either way you’re making a choice.Do you want to reply? Well I’m not really sure that that’s the case, it simply stillseems kind of different, the act of actually propagandizing someone over onto the tracks and killing them, you are actually killing him yourself, you’re pushinghim with your own hands you’re drive and that’s different than steering something that is going tocause death into another…you know it doesn’t really clang right saying it now when I’m up here. No that’s good, what’s your call? Andrew. Andrew and let me ask you this question Andrew, suppose standing on the bridge next to the fat man I didn’t have to push him, believe he was standing over a trap door that I could open by turninga steering wheel like that they are able to you turn it? For some reason that still just seems more more wrong.I mean maybe if you precisely accidentally like leaned intothis steering wheel or something like that or but, or say that the car is overcoming towards a button that will drop the bunker then I could agreed to accept that. Fair fairly, it was better seems wrong in a way that it doesn’t seem wrong in thefirst case to turn, you say An in another way, I make in the first place you’reinvolved immediately with the situation in the second largest one you’re an observer as well.So you have the choice of becoming involvedor not by propagandizing the overweight adult. Let’s forget for the moment about this case, that’s good, but let’s imagine a different example. This timeyour doctor in an emergency room and six cases came to see you you they’ve been in a awful trolley car shipwreck five members of them sustained moderate hurts oneis severely injured you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim, but in that time the five would die, or you couldlook after the five, reinstate them to health, but during that time the one severely injured person would die. How countless would save the five now as the doctor? How countless would save the one? Very few people, precisely a handful of people. Same reason I presume, one lifetime versus five. Now consider another doctor case this time you’re a transplant surgeon and you have five patients each in desperateneed of an organ transplant in order to survive on needs a heart one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver and the fifth a pancreas.And you have no organ sponsors you are about to see you them die and then it occurs to you that in the next room there’s a health guy who “re coming back” for a examination. and he is you like that and he’s taking a nap you could go in very quietly yank out the 5 organs, that person woulddie but you can save the five. How numerous would do it? Anyone? How many? Hands up if you would do it. Anyone in the balcony? You would? Be careful don’t lean over too much How many wouldn’t? All title. What do “youre telling”, speak up in the balcony, youwho would yank out the organs, why? I’d actually like to explore somewhat alternate possibility of only taking the one of the 5 he needs an organ who dies firstly and using their four healthful parts to save the otherfour That’s a pretty good idea.That’s a great idea except for the fact that you exactly wrecked the philosophical part. Let’s step back from these floors and these arguments to notice a couple of things about the path the controversies have began to unfold. Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge from the discussions we’ve had and let’s consider what those moral principles look like the first moral principle that emerged from the discussion said that the right thing to do the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your activity at the end of the day better that five should live even if one must die. That’s an example of consequentialist moral conclude. consequentialist moral infer locates moralityin the consequences of an routine. In the state of the nature that will result from the thing you do but then we moved a little further, we consideredthose other cases and people weren’t so sure about consequentialist moral interpretation when people hesitated to push the fat being over the connect or to yank out the institutions of the innocent patient people gesticulated towards reasonableness having to do with the intrinsic character of the purposes of the act itself.Consequences be what they may. People were reluctant beings thought it was just wrong categorically wrong to kill a person an innocent being even for the sake of saving five livings, at least these parties thought that in the second version of each story we reconsidered so this objects a few seconds categorical way of thinking about moral argue categorical moral reasoning locates moralityin certain absolute moral requirements in certain categorical duties and liberties regardless of the consequences. We’re going to explore in the days and weeks to come the contrastbetween consequentialist and categorical moral principles. The most influential example of consequential moral infer is utilitarianism, a concept developed by Jeremy Bentham, the eighteenth century Englishpolitical philosopher. The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the eighteenth century German philosopherEmmanuel Kant. So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning assess them and also consider others. If you look at the syllabus, you’ll noticethat we read a number of great and notorious books.Books by Aristotle John Locke Emanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and others. You’ll notice more from the syllabus thatwe don’t merely read these notebooks, we likewise all take up contemporary political and law controversiesthat conjure theoretical questions. We will debate equality and prejudice, affirmative action measures, free speech versus hate discussion, same sexuality union, military conscription, a range of practical questions, why not just to stimulate these abstract and distantbooks but to make clear to bring out what’s at stakein our everyday lives including our political livings, for logic. So we will read these diaries and we will debate these issues and we’ll see how each informs andilluminates the other. This may sound petitioning fairly but now I have to issue a warning, and the message is this to read these books in this way, as training exercises in self-knowledge, to read them in this way carry particular risks threats that are both personal and political, threats that every student of political thinking have known. These threats spring from that fact that thinking teaches the americans and unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know.There’s an irony the difficulty of this course consists in thefact that it teaches what you already know. It runs by do what we know from familiar unquestioned places, and uttering it strange. That’s how those patterns directed succeeded the hypotheticals with which we began with theirmix of playfulness and sobriety. it’s also how these philosophical journals task. Philosophy estranges us from the familiar not by furnish new information but by inviting and eliciting a brand-new way of accompanying but, and here’s the risk, once the familiar turns strange, it’s never fairly the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, nonetheless unsettling you find it, it makes it possible to never be unthought or unknown what builds this endeavor difficult but likewise riveting, is that moral and political philosophy is a story and you don’t know where this history will leadbut whatever it is you do know is that the story is about you.Those are the personal dangers , now what of the political dangers. one direction of introducing of course like this would be to promise you that by predict these records and debating these issues you will become a better more responsiblecitizen. You will examine the presuppositions ofpublic policy, you will hone your political judgment you’ll become a more effective participantin public things but this would be a partial and misleading promise political doctrine for the best part hasn’tworked that practice. You have to allow for the possibility that political thinking may determine you a worsecitizen rather than a better one or at least a worse citizen before it realizes you a better one and that’s because philosophy is a distancing even debilitating undertaking And you see this going back to Socrates there’s a dialogue, the Gorgias in which one of Socrates friends Calicles tries to talk him out of philosophizing.Calicles tells Socrates philosophy is a moderately toy if one indulges in it with calmnes atthe right time of man but if one seeks it farther than one shouldit is absolute ruin. Take my opinion calicles says, vacate assertion learn expected accomplishment of activelife, take for your models not those people who spendtheir hour on these petty quibbles, but those who have a good livelihood and stature and many other approbations. So Calicles is really saying to Socrates quit philosophizing, get jolly go to business school and calicles did have a point he had a point because ideology distances us from conventions from established assumptions and from settled faiths. those are the risks, personal and political and in the face of these risks there is acharacteristic evasion, the name of the evasion is agnosticism. It’sthe idea well it departs something like this we didn’t resolve, once and for all, either the cases or the principles we werearguing when we began and if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven’t solved these questionsafter all of these times who are we to think that we here in Sanders Theatre over thecourse a semester can resolve them and so maybe it’s just a matter of each person having his or her own principlesand there’s nothing more to be said about it no way of concluding that’s the evasion.The evasion of agnosticism to which I would give the following reply: it’s true these questions have been debated for a verylong time but the most fact that they have reoccurred and persisted may suggest that though they’re impossible in one sense their inevitable in another and the reason they’re unavoidable the reason they’re inescapable is that we livesome answer to these questions every day. So agnosticism, only throwing up their handsand giving up on moral thought, is no solution Emanuel Kant described very well the problem with skepticismwhen he wrote skepticism is a resting place for human rationalization where it can reflect upon its dogmatic walks but it is no dwelling sit for permanent colonization. Simply to succumb in skepticism, Kant wrote, can never suffice to overcome the restlessof conclude. I’ve tried to suggest through statements storiesand these arguments some sense of the health risks and desires of the jeopardies and the possibilities I wouldsimply conclude by saying that the aim of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reasonablenes and to see where it might conduct expressed appreciation for very much.Like, in a situation that desperate, you have to do what you have to do to survive.You have to do what you have to do you? You’ve gotta do What you gotta do. pretty much, If you’ve been going nineteen daytimes without any nutrient someone has to take the sacrifice, “somebodys gonna have” prepare the relinquish and people are able to survive. Alright that’s good, what’s your word? Marcus. Marcus, what do you say to Marcus? Last time we started out last term with some accumulations with some moral predicaments about trolley cars and about doctors and healthy patients vulnerable to being victims of organ transplantation we noticed two things about the polemics “weve had” one had to do with the road we were arguing it began with our judgments in particular cases we tried to articulate the reasons or theprinciples lying behind our judgments and then confronted with a new event we discovered ourselves re-examining those principles revising each in the light of the other and we noticed the built-in pressure to tryto bring into alignment our arbitrations about particular cases and the principles we would endorse on thoughtfulnes we too noticed something about the substanceof the arguments that emerged from the discussion.We noticed that sometimes we were temptedto locate the more of an act in the consequences in the research results, in the state of the world thatit brought about. We announced is consequentialist moral intellect. But we too noticed that in some cases we weren’t swayed simply by the results sometimes, many of us felt, that not just causes but likewise the intrinsicquality or reference of the purposes of the act interests morally. Some beings argued that there are certain thingsthat are just categorically wrong even if they bring about a good decision even if they save five people at the costs of one live. So we opposed consequentialist moral principles with categorical ones.Today and in the next few days we will begin to examine one of themost influential versions of consequentialist moral thought and that’s the philosophy of utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham, the eighteenth century English political philosopher made first the first clear methodical expression to the utilitarian moral thought. And Bentham’s project, his essential idea is a very simple one with a lot of morally intuitive appeal. Bentham’s opinion is the following the right thing to do the only thing to do it’s to maximize utility. What did he necessitate by utility? He conveyed by utility the balance of pleasure over sting, happy over agony. Here’s how we arrived at the principle of maximizing utility. He started out by observing that all of us all human beings are governed by two sovereign lords, ache and desire. We human beings like please and despise ache and so we should base righteousnes whether we are thinking of what to do in our own lifetimes or whether as legislators or citizens we are thinking about what the law should be, the right thing to do individually or collectively is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness.Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes summedup with the slogan the greatest good for the greatest number. With this basic principle of practicality on hand, let’s begin to test it and to examine it by turning to another case another story but this time not a hypothetical narration, a real-life story the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens. This was a nineteenth-century British law case that’s famous and much debated in law academies. Here’s what happened in the case I’ll summarize the narrative and then I want to hear how you would rule imagining that you are the jury. A newspaper account of the time described the background: A sadder floor of disaster at sea was never told than that of the survivors of the ship Mignonette. The ship foundered in the south Atlantic thirteen hundred miles from the mantle there is indeed four in the gang, Dudley was the skipper Stephens was the first mate Brooks was a sailor, all men of excellent character, or so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew member was the room son, Richard Parker seventeen years old.He was an orphan he had no family and he was on his first long navigate at sea. He vanished, the bulletin note tells us, instead against the advice of his friends. He departed in the hopefulness of boyish passion recalling the jaunt would make a man of him. Unhappily it was not to be, the facts of the case were not in dispute, a wave pop the ship and the Mignonette went down.The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat the only food they had were two cans of preserved turnips no fresh water for the first three days they snack nothing on the fourth daytime “thats open” one of the cans ofturnips and devour it. The next day they caught a turtle together with the other can of turnips the turtle enabled them to subsist for the next few days and then for eight daylights they had nothing no nutrient no sea. Imagine yourself in a situation like that what would you do? Here’s what they did by now the room boy Parker is lying at thebottom of the lifeboat in a corner because he had drunk sea water against the advice of the others and he had become ill and he appears to be dying so on the nineteenth day Dudley, the command, suggested that they should all have a lottery.That they should all draw lots to see who would die to save the remainder. Brooks refused he didn’t like the gamble sentiment we don’t know whether this was because he didn’t want to take that chanceor because he believed in categorical moral principles but in any case no muches were selected. The next day there was still no ship in sight so a Dudley told Brooks to avert his gape and he motioned to Stephens that the boy Parker had better be killed. Dudley offered a prayer he told a the son his time had come and he killed him with a pen bayonet impaling him in the jugular vein. Creeks originated from his careful objectionto share in the awful bounty. For four epoches the three of them fed on their own bodies and bloodof the hut son. True story. And then they were rescued. Dudley describes their rescue in his diary with staggering euphemism, quote: “on the twenty fourth daylight as we were having our breakfast a ship appeared at last.” The three survivors were picked up by a German ship.They were made back to Falmouth in England where they were arrested and tried Brooks turned state’s witness Dudley and Stephens went to trial.They didn’tdispute the facts they claimed they had acted out of necessity that was their justification they debated in effect better that one should die so that three could live the prosecutor wasn’t swayed by that assertion he said assassinate is murder and so the occasion went to trial. Now imagineyou are the jury and simply to simplify the discussion put aside the question of law, and let’s assume that you as the jury are charged with deciding whether what they did was morally acceptable or not. How numerous would vote not guilty, that what the fuck is did was morallypermissible? And how many would vote guilty what they did was morally wrong? A pretty sizable majority. Now let’s see what people’s concludes are, and let mebegin with those who are in the minority. Let’s hear first from the defense of Dudley and Stephens. Why would you morally absolve them? What are your reasons? I think it’s I think it is morally reprehensible but I think that there’s a distinction betweenwhat’s morally reprehensible what impels person legally accountable in other words the night as the evaluate saidwhat’s ever moral isn’t inevitably against the law and while I don’t think thatnecessity apologizes theft or carnage any illegal ordinance, at some site your magnitude of necessity doesin fact exonerate you form any guilt.Ok. other followers, other spokespeople for the justification? Moral explains for what they did? yes, thank you I just feel like in a situation that desperate “youve got to” dowhat you have to do to survive. You have to do what you have to do ya, you gotta do what you gotta do, pretty much. If you’ve been going nineteen epoches without any nutrient you know someone just has to make the sacrificehas to see relinquishes and people are able to survive and additionally from that let’s “says hes” endured and then they become productivemembers of society who go home and then start like a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that, I mean they benefit everybody in the end so I necessitate I don’t know what they did afterwards, I meanthey might have gone on and killed more people but whatever. what? what if they were going home and turned out to be assassins? What if they were going home and turned out to be assassins? You would want to know who they assassinated.That’s true more, that’s fair I would wanna know who they assassinated. alright that’s good, what’s your honour? Marcus. We’ve heard a protection a pair tones for the security now we need to hear from the prosecution most people think what they did was wrong, why? One of the first things that I was thinking was, oh well if they haven’t been munching for a really long time, perhaps then they’re mentally changed that could be used for the security, a possible controversy that oh, that they weren’t in a proper state of mind, they were making decisions that they otherwise wouldn’t be forming, and if that’s an request polemic that you have to be in an altered mindset to do somethinglike that it suggests that people who find that argument persuading do you think that they’re acting immorally.But I want to know what you think you’re defending you k0: 37:41.249, 0:37: 45.549 you elected to imprison right? yeah I don’t think that they played in morally appropriate way.And why not? What do “youre telling”, Here’s Marcus he time represented them, he said, you heard what he said, yes I did yes that you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do in acase like that. What do you say to Marcus? They didn’t, that there is no situation that would allow humanbeings to take the idea of fate or another people’slives into their own hands that we don’t have that kind of power. Good, okay thanks you, and what’s your name? Britt? okay.Who else? What do “youre telling”? Stand up I’m wondering if Dudley and Stephens had asked for Richard Parker’s permit in, you know, dying, if that would would that exonerate them from an ordinance of slaughter, and if so is that still morallyjustifiable? That’s interesting, alright permit , now hang on, what’s your mention? Kathleen. Kathleen says suppose so what would that scenario look like? so in the storey Dudley is there, pen spear in hand, but instead of the petition or before the prayer, he says, Parker, would you mind we’re desperately hungry, as Marcus empathizes with we’re urgently hungry you’re not going to last long anyhow, you can be a martyr, would you be a martyr how about it Parker? Then, then then what do you think, wouldbe morally justified then? Suppose Parker in his semi-stupor says okay I don’t think it’ll be morally legitimate but I’m wondering.Even then, even then it wouldn’t be? No You don’t think that even with consent it “wouldve been” morally justified.Are there people who gues that wish to take up Kathleen’s acceptance mind and who think that that would make itmorally vindicated? Raise your hand if it would if you think it would. That’s very interesting Why would consent make a moral inconsistency? Why would it? Well I just think that if he was becoming his own originalidea and it was his idea to start with then that would be the only situation in which Iwould see it being appropriate in regardles 0:40: 25.940, 0:40: 28.359 because that highway you couldn’t realize the argumentthat he was stressed you know its three to one or whatever the rate was, and I think that if he was making a decision to give his lifethen he took on the agency to sacrifice himself which some people might see as admirable and other people might disagree with that decision.So if he came up with the idea that’s the only kind of consent we could haveconfidence in morally, then it would be okay otherwise it would be kind of compelled permission under the circumstances you think. Is there anyone who thinks that the even the consent of Parker would not justify their killing him? Who is considered that? Yes, tell us why, stand up I think that Parker would be killed with the hope that the other crew memberswould be extricated so there’s no definite reason that he shouldbe killed because you don’t know when they’re going to get extricated so if you kill him you’re killing him in vain do you save killing a gang member until you’re rescued and then you’re leave behind no one? because someone’s going to die eventually? Well the moral logic of the situation seems tobe that. That they would keep on picking off the weakest perhap, one byone, until they were rescued and in such cases luckily when three at least were still alive.Now if if Parker did cause his consent would it be all right do you think or not? No, it was better wouldn’t be right. Tell us why wouldn’t be all right. First of all, cannibalism, I believe is morally incorrect so you shouldnt be dining a human regardles. So cannibalism is morally objectionable outside so then even in the scenario of waiting until someone died still it “wouldve been” abhorrent. Yes, to me personally I feel like of it all depends on one’s personal mores, like we can’t just, like this is just my opinion of course other people are going to dissent. Well let’s see, let’s hear what their disagreementsare and then we’ll see if they have intellects that can persuade you or not. Let’s try that Let’s now is there someone who can explain, those of you who are temptedby consent can you explain why consent attains such a moral difference, what about the lottery hypothesi does that weigh as consent.Remember atthe beginning Dudley proposed a lottery suppose that they had agreed to a lottery then how many would then say it was all right. Say there was a lottery, hut boy lost, and the rest of the story revealed. Howmany parties would say it’s morally allow? So the numbers are rising if we lend a lottery, let’s hear from one of you for whom the lottery would make a moral change why would it? I believe the essential element, in my attention that realizes it a crime is the idea that they decided at some point thattheir lives were more important than his, and that I mean that’s kind of the basis for reallyany crime right? It’s like my needs, my lust is a more important than yoursand pit make precedent and if they had done a lottery were everyoneconsented that someone should die and it’s sort of like they’re all sacrificing themselves, to save the residual, Then it would be all right? A little grotesque but, But morally admissible? Yes.What’s your identify? Matt. so, Matt for you what inconveniences you is not the cannibalism, but the lack of due process. I guess you could say that And can someone who agrees with Matt say a little bit more about why a lottery would make it, in your view, morally permissible. The path I understood it initially was that that was thewhole issue is that the hovel son was never consulted about whether or not it something was goingto happen to him even though with the original raffle whether or not he would be a part of thatit was just decided that he was the one that was going to die. Yes that’s what happened in the actual suit but if there were a lottery and they all agreedto the procedure you think that would be okay? Right, because everyone knows that there’s gonna bea death whereas you know the cabin boy didn’t know that this discussion was even happening there was no you know forewarning for him to know that hey, I may be the onethat’s dying.Okay , now repute the everyone agrees to the lottery they have the raffle the cabinboy loses any conversions his thought. You’ve already decided, it’s like a verbal contract, you can’t going to be home on that. You’ve decided the decision was established you know if you know you’re dying for the reasonablenes for at others to live, you are able to, you know if the someone else had died you know that you would consume them, so But then he could say I know, but I lost. I just think that that’s the whole moral issue is that there wasno consulting of the cabin son and that that’s what originates it the most horrible is that he had no idea what was evengoing on, that if he had known what was going on it would be a bit more understandable.Alright, good , now I want to hear so there’s some who think it’s morally allow but simply about twenty percent, led by Marcus, then there are some who say the real problem here is the lack of consent whether the lack of consent to a lottery toa fair procedure or Kathleen’s hypothesi, shortfall of approval at the moment of extinction and if we add permission then more people are willing to consider the sacrifice morally vindicated. I want to hear now finally from those of you who feel even with consent even with a lottery even with a final murmuring of permit from Parker at the very last moment it would still be wrong and why would it be wrong that’s what I “ve got to hear”. well the whole time I’ve been leaning towards the categorical moral argue and I think that there’s a possibility I’d be okay with theidea of the gamble and then loser taking into their own hands to kill themselves so there wouldn’t be an play of carnage butI still are of the view that even that acces it’s compelled and also I don’tthink that there’s any compassion like in Dudley’s journal we’re getting our breakfast it seems as though he’s just sort of like, oh, you know that whole idea of not appraising someone else’s life so that procreates me feel like I have to make the categorical stance.You want to throw the diary at him. when he shortcoming remorse or a sense of having doneanything wrong. Right. Alright, good so are there any other champions who who say it’s just categorically wrong, with or without acceptance, yes stand up. Why? I recall surely the lane our society is determined, murderis murder murder is murder and every lane national societies looks down at it in the same sunrise and I don’t think it’s any different in any case. Good now let me ask you a question, there is indeed three lives at stake versus one, the one, that the hut son, he had no family he had no relatives, these other three had lineages back homein England they had dependents they had spouses and children think back to Bentham, Bentham says we have to consider the welfare, the utility, the merriment of everybody. We have to add it all up so it’s not just crowds three against one it’s also all of those people at home in fact the London newspaper at the time and popular opinion sympathized with them Dudley in Stephens and the paper said if they weren’t motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones athome and relatives, surely they wouldn’t have done this.Yeah, and how is that any different from people on the reces trying to having the same desire to feed the families of such, I don’t think it’s any different. I think in any case if I’m murdering you to advance my status, that’s murder and I consider that we should look at all of that in the same light. Instead of criminalizing certain activities and procreating certain things seem moreviolent and fiend when in that same example it’s all the same ordinance and mentality that goes into the murder, a necessityto feed their families.Suppose there weren’t three, belief there were thirty, three hundred, one man to save three hundred or in more age, three thousand or repute the ventures were even bigger. Suppose the stakes were even bigger I think it’s still the same batch. Do you think Bentham was wrong to say the right thingto do is to add up the accumulated happiness, you think he’swrong about that? I don’t think he is wrong, but I remember assassinate is murder in any case.Well then Bentham has to be wrong if you’re right he’s wrong. okay then he’s wrong. Alright thank you, well done. Alright, let’s step back from such discussions and notice how many oppositions have we heard to what the fuck is did. “weve heard” some securities of what they did the security has had to do with demand the frightening environment and, implicitly at least, the idea that crowds stuff and not only crowds matter but the wider accomplishes interest the families of such back home, their dependents Parker was an orphan , no one would miss him.So if you add together if you tried to calculate the balance of happiness and lose you might have a case for saying what they did was the right thing then we heard at least three different typesof oppositions, “weve heard” an objection that’s said what the fuck is did was categorically wrong, right here at the end categorically wrong. Murder is murder it’s always wrong even though it is increases the overall happy of civilization the categorical objection.But we still need to investigate why slaughter is categorically wrong. Is it because even cabin sons have certain fundamental rights? And if that’s the reason where do those rights come from if not fromsome idea of the larger welfare or practicality or prosperity? Question number one. Others said a lottery would make a difference a fair procedure, Matt said. And some people were swayed by that. That’s not a categorical opposition exactly it’s saying everybody has to be counted as an equal even if they are, at the end of the day one can be relinquished for members of the general welfare.That needles us with another question to investigate, Why does agreement to specific procedure, even a fair procedure, justify whatever arise flows from the operation of that procedure? Question number two. and question digit three the basic idea of authorization. Kathleen got us on to this. If the room son “ve agreed” himself and not under duress as was added then it would be all right to make his life to save the residue. Even more parties indicated on to that plan but that causes a third theoretical question what is the moral cultivate that agree does? Why does an deed of agree make such a moral change that an act that would be wrong, taking a life, without permission is morally acceptable with consent? To analyse those three questions we’re going to have to read some philosophers and starting next time we’re going to read Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers. Don’t miss the chance to interact online with other viewersof Justice join the conversation, take a pop quiz, watch lectures you’ve missed, and a lot more.Visit www.justiceharvard.org. It’s the right thing to do. Funding for the program is provided by Additional funding provided by.

Shares
|ShareTweet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*