funding for this program is provided by
additional funding provided by
this is a course about justice and we begin with a story
suppose you're the driver of a trolley car
and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at sixty miles an hour
and at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track
you try to stop but you can't
your brakes don't work
you feel desperate because you know
that if you crash into these five workers
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 side track
and at the end of that track
there's one worker
working on the track
your steering wheel works
so you can
turn the trolley car
if you want to
onto the side track
killing the one
but sparing 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
raise your hands
how many wouldn't
how many would go straight ahead
keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead
a handful of people would the vast majority would turn
let's hear first
now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think
it's the right thing to do let's begin with those
in the majority
who would turn
to go onto the side track
why would you do it
what would be your reason
who's willing to volunteer
for a reason
go ahead stand up
because it can't be right to kill five people when 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 on
9-11 we regard the people who
who flew the plane into the
Pennsylvania field as heroes
because they chose to kill the people in the plane
and not kill more people in
big buildings
so the principle there was the same on 9-11
to tragic circumstance
but better to kill one
so that five can live
is that the reason most of you had those of you who would turn?
let's hear now
from
those in the minority
those who wouldn't turn
well I think that's the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism
in order to save one type of race you wipe out the other
so what would you do in this case you would
to avoid
the horrors of genocide
you would
crash into the five and kill them?
presumably yes
okay who else
that's a brave answer thank you
let's consider
another
trolley car case
and see
whether
those of you in the majority
want to adhere to the principle
better that one should die so that five should live
this time you're not the driver of the trolley car you're an onlooker
you're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track
and down the track comes a trolley car
at the end of the track are five workers
the brakes don't work
the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them
and now
you're not the driver
you really feel helpless
until you notice
standing next to you
leaning over
the bridge
is a very fat man
you could
give him
a shove
he would fall over the bridge
onto the track
right in the way
of the
trolley car
he would die
but he would spare the five
how many
would push
the fat man over the bridge
raise your hand
how many wouldn't
most people wouldn't
here's the obvious question
what became
of the principle
better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one what became of the principle
that almost everyone endorsed
in the first case
i need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both
cases
how do you explain the difference between the two?
the second one i guess involves an active choice of pushing the person down which
i guess that person himself would otherwise
not have been involved in the situation at all and so to
choose on his behalf i guess
to
involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is
i guess more than
what you have in the first case where
the three parties that the driver and
the two sets of workers are already i guess in the situation
but the guy working the one on the track off to the side
he didn't choose to sacrifice his life anymore than the fat man did, did he?
that's true but
he was on the tracks
this guy was on the bridge
go ahead you can come back if you want
all right it's a hard question
you did well, you did very well it's a hard question
who else
can
find a way of reconciling
the reaction of the majority in these two cases?
well i guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five
it's choice between those two
and you have to make a certain choice and people are going to die because of the trolley car
not necessarily because of your direct actions the trolley car is a runway
you're hanging in and you're making a split second choice
whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part
you have control over that
whereas you may not have control over the trolley car
so i think it's a slightly different situation
all right who has a reply is that is
no that's 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 because you choose to
either way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and
kill the person which is an act of conscious thought to turn or you
choose to push the fat man over which is also an active conscious action
so either way you're making a choice
do you want to reply?
well i'm not really sure that's the case it just still seems kind of
different the act of actually
pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him
you are actually killing him yourself
you're pushing him with your own hands
you're pushing him and that's different
than steering something
that is going to cause death
into another
you know it doesn't really sound right saying it now
it's good what's your name?
Andrew let me ask you this question Andrew
suppose
standing on the bridge
next to the fat man
i didn't have to push him suppose he were standing
over a trap door that i could open by turning a steering wheel like that
would you turn?
for some reason that still just seems
more wrong
maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something like that
but uh...
or say that the car is
hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap
um...
then i could agree with that. fair enough it still seems
wrong in a way that it doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn
and in another way i mean in the first situation you're involved directly with the situation
in the second one you're an onlooker as well
so you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man
let's forget for the moment about this case
that's good
let's imagine a different case this time you're a doctor in
an emergency room
and six patients come to you
they've been in a terrible trolley car wreck
five of them sustained moderate injuries one is severely injured you could spend all day
caring for the one severely injured
victim
but in that time the five would die or you could look after the five restore them to health but during that time
the one severely injured
person would die
how many would save the five?
now is the doctor
how many would save the one?
very few people
just a handful of people
same reason I assume
one life versus five
now consider
another doctor case
this time you're a transplant surgeon
and you have five patients each in desperate need
of an organ transplant in order to survive
one needs a heart, one a lung
one a kidney
one a liver
and the fifth
a pancreas
you have no organ donors
you are about to
see them die
and then
it occurs to you
that in the next room
there's a healthy guy who came in for a checkup
and he's
you like that?
he's taking a nap
you could go in very quietly
yank out the five organs that person would die
but you could save the five
how many would do it?
how many? put your 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?
what do you say? speak up in the balcony, you who would
yank out the organs
I'd actually like to explore a slightly alternate
idea of just taking the one
of the five who needs an organ who dies first
and using their four healthy organs to save the other four
that's a pretty good idea
that's a great idea
except for the fact
that you just wrecked the philosophical point
let's step back
from these stories and these arguments
to notice a couple of things
about the way the arguments have begun 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 in the discussion
said, the right thing to do, the moral thing to do
is to base on the consequences that will result
from your action
at the end of the day
better that five should live
even if one must die
that's an example
of consequentialist
moral reasoning
consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result
from the thing you do
then we went a little further we considered those other cases
and people weren't so sure
about
consequentialist moral reasoning
when people hesitated
to push the fat man
over the bridge
or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient
people gestured toward
reasons
having to do
with the intrinsic
quality of the act
itself
the consequences be what they may
people were reluctant
people thought it was just wrong
categorically wrong
to kill a person
an innocent person
even for the sake of saving five lives at least people thought that
in the second
version of each story we considered
so this points
to a second
way
of thinking about
moral reasoning
categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements, certain
categorical duties and rights
regardless of the consequences
we're going to explore
in the days and weeks to come the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles
the most influential
example of
consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by
Jeremy Bentham, the eighteenth century english political philosopher
the most important
philosopher of categorical moral reasoning
is the
eighteenth century german
philosopher Immanuel 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 notice that we read a number of great and famous books
books by Aristotle
John Locke
Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill
and others
you'll notice too from the syllabus that we don't only read these books
we also
take up
contemporary political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions
we will debate equality and inequality
affirmative action
free speech versus hate speech
same-sex marriage, military conscription
a range of practical questions
why? not just to enliven these abstract and distant books
but to make clear, to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives including our political lives
for philosophy
and so we will read these books
and we will debate these
issues and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other
this may sound appealing enough
but here
I have to issue a warning
and the warning is this
to read these books
in this way
as an exercise in self-knowledge
to read them in this way carries certain risks
risks that are both personal and political
risks that every student of political philosophy has known
these risks spring from the fact
that philosophy
teaches us
and unsettles us
by confronting us with what we already know
there's an irony
the difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know
it works
by taking
what we know from familiar unquestioned settings
and making it strange
that's how those examples worked
the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety
it's also how these philosophical books work philosophy
estranges us
from the familiar
not by supplying new information
but by inviting and provoking
a new way of seeing
but, and here's the risk
once
the familiar turns strange
it's never quite the same again
self-knowledge
is like lost innocence
however unsettling
you find it
it can never
be un-thought
or unknown
what makes this enterprise difficult
but also riveting
is that
moral and political philosophy is a story
and you don't know where the story will lead but what you do know
is that the story
is about you
those are the personal risks
now what of the political risks
one way of introducing a course like this
would be to promise you
that by reading these books
and debating these issues
you will become a better more responsible citizen
you will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone your political judgment
you will become a more effective participant in public affairs
but this would be a partial and misleading promise
political philosophy for the most part hasn't worked that way
you have to allow for the possibility
that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen
rather than a better one
or at least a worse citizen
before it makes you
a better one
and that's because philosophy
is a distancing
even debilitating
activity
and you see this
going back to Socrates
there's a dialogue, the Gorgias
in which one of Socrates' friends
Callicles tries to talk him out
of philosophizing
Callicles tells Socrates
philosophy is a pretty toy
if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life
but if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin
take my advice, Callicles says
abandon argument
learn the accomplishments of active life
look for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles
but those who have a good livelihood and reputation
and many other blessings
so Callicles is really saying to Socrates
quit philosophizing
get real
go to business school
and Callicles did have a point
he had a point
because philosophy distances us
from conventions, from established assumptions
and from settled beliefs
those are the risks
personal and political
and in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion
the name of the evasion is skepticism, it's the idea
let go something like this
we didn't resolve
once and for all
either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began
and if Aristotle
and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all of these years
who are we to think
that we here in Sanders Theater over the course of a semester
can resolve them
and so maybe it's just a matter of
each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more to be said about it
no way of reasoning
that's the evasion
the evasion of skepticism
to which I would offer the following reply
it's true
these questions have been debated for a very long time
but the very fact
that they have recurred and persisted
may suggest
that though they're impossible in one sense
they're unavoidable in another
and the reason they're unavoidable
the reason they're inescapable is that we live some answer
to these questions every day
so skepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection
is no solution
Immanuel Kant
described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote
skepticism is a resting place for human reason
where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings
but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement
simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote
can never suffice
to overcome the restlessness of reason
I've tried to suggest
through these stories and these arguments
some sense of the risks and temptations
of the perils and the possibilities. I would simply conclude by saying
that the aim of this course
is to awaken
the restlessness of reason
and to see where it might lead
thank you very much
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 gotta do what you gotta do
pretty much
if you've been
going nineteen days without any food
you know someone just has to take the sacrifice, someone has to make the sacrifice
and people can survive
alright that's good, what's your name?
Marcus
what do you say to Marcus?
we started out last time
with some stories
with some moral dilemmas
about trolley cars
and about doctors
and healthy patients
vulnerable
to being victims of organ transplantation
we noticed two things
about the arguments we had
one had to do with the way we were arguing
we began with
our judgments in particular cases
we tried to articulate the reasons or the principles
lying behind our judgments
and then confronted with a new case
we found ourselves re-examining those principles
revising each in the light of the other
and we noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring into alignment
our judgments about particular cases
and the principles we would endorse
on reflection
we also noticed something about the substance of the arguments
that emerged from the discussion
we noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act and the
consequences in the results
in the state of the world that it brought about
and we call this consequentialist
moral reasoning
but we also noticed that
in some cases
we weren't swayed only
by the result
sometimes
many of us felt
that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality or character of the act
matters morally
some people argued that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong
even if they bring about
a good result
even
if they save five people
at the cost of one life
so we contrasted consequentialist
moral principles
with categorical ones
today
and in the next few days we will begin to examine one of the most influential
versions of consequentialist
moral theory
and that's the philosophy of utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham
the eighteenth century
English political philosopher
gave first
clear systematic expression
to the utilitarian
moral theory
and Bentham's idea
his essential idea
is a very simple one
with a lot of it
morally intuitive
Bentham's idea is
the following
the right thing to do
the just thing to do
is to maximize
utility. What did he mean by utility?
he meant by utility the balance of
pleasure over pain
happiness over suffering
here's how he arrived
at the principle of maximizing utility
he started out by observing
that all of us
all human beings
are governed by two sovereign masters
pain and pleasure
we human beings
like pleasure and dislike pain
and so we should base morality
whether we're thinking about what to do in our own lives
or whether
as legislators or citizens
we're thinking about what the laws 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 summed up with the slogan
the greatest good for the greatest number
with this
basic principle of utility 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 story
a real life story
a case of
the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens
this was a nineteenth century British law case that's
famous
and much debated in
law schools
here's what happened in the case
I'll summarize the story
then I want to hear
how you would rule
imagining that you're the jury
a newspaper account of the time
described the background
the first story of disaster at sea
was never told
than that of the survivors of the yacht
Minunet
the ship foundered in the south atlantic
thirteen hundred miles from the Cape
there were four in the crew
Dudley was the captain
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 cabin boy
Steve Parker
seventeen years old
he was an orphan
he had no family
and he was on his first long voyage at sea
he went the news account tells us
rather against the advice of his friends
he went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition
thinking the journey would make a man of him
sadly it was not to be
the facts of the case were not in dispute
Steve hit the ship
and the Minunet 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 ate nothing
on the fourth day
they opened one of the cans of turnips and ate 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 days
they had nothing
no food no water
imagine yourself
in a situation like that
what would you do?
here's what they did
by now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in the corner
because he had drunk sea water
against the advice of the others
and he had become ill
and he appeared
to be dying
so on the nineteenth day Dudley the captain suggested
that they should all
have a lottery
that they should draw lots
to see
who would die
to save the rest
Brooks refused
he didn't like the lottery idea
we don't know whether this was because
he didn't want to take the chance or because he believed in categorical moral
principles
but in any case
no lots were drawn
the next day
there was still no ship in sight
so Dudley told Brooks
to avert his gaze
and he motioned to Stevens
that the boy Parker had better be killed
Dudley offered a prayer
he told the boy his time had come
and he killed him with a pen knife
stabbing him in the jugular vein
Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty
for four days
the three of them fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy
true story
and then they were rescued
Dudley describes their rescue
in his diary
with staggering euphemism
on the twenty-fourth day
as we were having our breakfast
a ship appeared at last
the three survivors were picked up by a German ship they were taken back to Falmouth in England
where they were arrested and tried
Brooks
turned states witness
Dudley and Stevens went to trial they didn't dispute the facts
they claimed
they had acted out of necessity
that was their defense
they argued in effect
better that one should die
so that three could survive
the prosecutor
wasn't swayed by that argument
he said murder is murder
and so the case went to trial now imagine you are the jury
and just to simplify the discussion
put aside the question of law
let's assume that you as the jury
are charged with deciding
whether what they did was morally
permissible or not
how many
would vote
not guilty
that what they did was morally permissible
and how many would vote guilty
what they did was morally wrong
a pretty sizable majority
now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with those who are in the minority
let's hear first from the defense
of Dudley and Stevens
why would you
morally exonerate them
what are your reasons
i think it's i think it is morally reprehensible
but i think that there's a distinction between what's morally reprehensible
and what makes someone legally accountable
in other words you know as the judge said what's what's always moral isn't
necessarily against the law
and while i don't think that necessity
justifies
theft or murder or any illegal act
at some point your degree of necessity
does in fact
exonerate you from any guilt
other defenders other voices for the
defense
moral justifications for
what they did
thank you
i just feel 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 have to do what you have to do pretty much
if you've been
going nineteen days without any food
you know someone just has to take the sacrifice, someone has to make the sacrifice
so that people can survive
and furthermore from that
let's say they survive and then they become productive members of society
who go home and start like
a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that
i mean they benefit everybody in the end
i mean i don't know what they did afterwards they might have gone and like
kill more people
whatever but
what if they went home and they turned out to be assassins
what if they went home and turned out to be assassins?
you'd want to know who they assassinated
that's fair
i don't want to know who they assassinated
alright that's good, what's your name?
marcus
we've heard a defense
couple of voices for the defense
now we need to hear
from the prosecution
most people think
what they did was wrong
one of the first things
that i was thinking was, oh if they haven't been eating for a really long time maybe
they
they're mentally affected
and so then
that could be used as a defense, a possible argument that
they weren't in the proper state of mind, they weren't making decisions they
might otherwise be making
and if that's an appealing argument that
you have to be in an altered mindset to do something like that it suggests
that
people who find that argument convincing
do think that they were acting immorally
you defend them, i'm sorry, you vote to convict, right?
yeah, i don't think that they acted in a morally appropriate way
and why not? what do you say
here's marcus
he just defended them
he said
you heard what he said
that you've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that
what do you say to marcus?
that there's no situation that would allow human beings to take
the idea of fate or that the other people's lives in their own hands that
we don't have that kind of
power
thank you, and what's your name?
ritt
who else?
what do you say? stand up
i'm wondering if dudley and steven had asked for richard parker's consent
in
dying
if that would
would that
exonerate them
from an act of murder
and if so is that still morally justifiable
that's interesting, all right, consent, wait wait
hang on, what's your name?
kathleen
kathleen
says suppose they had asked, what would that scenario look like?
so
in the story
dudley is there, penknife in hand
but instead of the prayer
or before the prayer
he says
parker
would you mind
we're desperately hungry
as marcus empathizes with
we're desperately hungry
you're not gonna last long anyhow
you can be a martyr
would you be a martyr?
how about it, parker?
then
then what do you think, would it be morally justified then? suppose parker
in his semi stupor
says okay
i don't think it would be morally justifiable but i'm wondering
even then it wouldn't be
you don't think that even with consent
it would be morally justified
are there people who think
who want to take up kathleen's
consent idea and who think that that would make it morally justified
raise your hand if it would
if you think it would
that's very interesting
why would consent
make a moral difference
why would it?
well i just think that if he was making his own original idea and it was his idea to
start with
then that would be the only situation in which i would
see it being appropriate in any way
because that way you couldn't make the argument that
he was pressured you know it's three
to one or whatever the ratio was
and i think that
if he was making a decision to give his life then 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 have confidence in
morally then it would be okay
otherwise
it would be kind of coerced consent
under the circumstances
you think
is there anyone who thinks
that even the consent of parker
would not justify
the killing him
who thinks that?
yes tell us why stand up
i think that parker would be killed with the hope that the other
crew members would be rescued so
there's no definite reason that he should be killed
because you don't know who
when they're going to get rescued so if you kill him it's killing him in vain do you keep killing the crew member until
you're rescued and then you're left with no one
because someone's going to die eventually
well the moral logic of the situation seems to be that
that they would
keep on picking off the weakest maybe one by one
until they were
rescued and in this case luckily they were rescued when three at least were still alive
now if
if parker did give his consent
would it be all right do you think or not?
no it still wouldn't be right
tell us why it wouldn't be all right
first of all cannibalism i believe
is morally incorrect
so
you shouldn't be eating a human anyway
so
cannibalism is morally objectionable
so then even on the scenario
of waiting until someone died
still it would be objectionable
yes to me personally
i feel like
it all depends on
one's personal morals
and like we can't sit here and just
like this is just my opinion
of course other people are going to disagree
well we'll see let's see what their disagreements are and then we'll see
if they have reasons
that can persuade you or not
let's try that
all right
let's um
now is there someone
who can explain those of you who are tempted by consent
can you explain
why consent makes
such a moral difference
what about the lottery idea
does that count as consent remember at the beginning
Dudley proposed a lottery
suppose that they had agreed
to a lottery
then
how many would then say
it was all right
suppose there were a lottery
cabin boy lost
and the rest of the story unfolded then how many people would say it was morally permissible
so the numbers are rising if we had a lottery let's hear from one of you
for whom the lottery would make a moral
difference
why would it
I think the essential element
in my mind that makes it a crime is
the idea that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his
and that
I mean that's kind of the basis for really any crime
it's like
my needs my desires are more important than yours and mine take precedent
and if they had done a lottery where everyone consented
that someone should die
it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves
to save the rest
then it would be all right
a little grotesque but
but morally permissible
and what's your name
so Matt for you
what bothers you is not
the cannibalism but the lack of due process
I guess you could say that
can someone who agrees with Matt
say a little bit more
about why a lottery
would make it in your view
morally permissible
the way I understood it originally was that that was the whole issue is that the cabin boy was never consulted
about whether or not something was going to happen to him even with the original lottery
whether or not he would be a part of that
it was just decided
that he was the one that was going to die right that's what happened in the actual case
but if there were a lottery and they had all agreed to the procedure
you think that would be okay
right because then everyone knows that there's going to be a 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 one that's dying all right now suppose
everyone agrees to the lottery they have the lottery the cabin boy loses
and he changes his mind
you've already decided it's like a verbal contract you can't go back on that you've decided the decision was made
you know if you know that you're dying for the you know the reason for others to live you would
if someone else had died
you know that you would consume them so
right but then he could say I know but I lost
I just think that that's the whole moral issue is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy and that
that's what makes it the most
horrible is that he had no idea what was even going on
that had he known what was going on it would
be a bit more understandable
now I want to hear
so there are some who think
it's morally permissible
but only about twenty percent
led by Marcus
then there are some who say
the real problem here
is the lack of consent
either the lack of consent to a lottery to a fair procedure
or
Kathleen's idea
lack of consent
at the moment
of death
and if we add consent
then
more people are willing to consider
the sacrifice morally justified
I want to hear now finally
from those of you who think
even with consent
even with a lottery
even with
a final
murmur of consent by Parker
at the
very last moment
it would still
be wrong
and why would it be wrong
that's what I want to hear
well the whole time I've been
leaning all towards the categorical moral reasoning
and I think that
there's a possibility I'd be okay with the idea of a lottery and then the loser
taking into their own hands to
kill themselves
so there wouldn't be an active murder but I still think that
even that way it's coerced and also I don't think that there's any remorse
like in Dudley's diary
we're eating our breakfast
it seems as though he's just sort of like
you know the whole idea of not valuing someone else's life
so that makes me
feel like I have to
take the category. You want to throw the book at him
and he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong
so alright, good. Other, any other
defenders of a
who say it's just categorically wrong with or without consent? Yes, stand up. Why?
I think undoubtedly the way our society shape murder is murder
murder is murder in every way and our society looks at murder
down on it in the same light and I don't think it's any different in any case. Good, let me ask you a question
there were three lives at stake
against one. Okay.
The one, the cabin boy, he had no family, he had no dependents
these other three had families back home in England, they had dependents
they had wives and children
think back to Bentham
Bentham says we have to consider the welfare, the utility, the happiness
of everybody. We have to add it all up
so it's not just numbers three against one
there's also all of those people at home
in fact the London newspaper at the time
and popular opinion sympathized with them
Dudley and Stephens
and the paper said if they weren't
motivated by affection
and concern for their loved ones at home and their dependents surely they wouldn't have done this. Yeah, and how is that any different from
people on the corner
trying to have the same desire to feed their family? I don't think it's any different. I think in any case
if I'm murdering you to advance my status
as murder and I think that we should look at that on the same light instead of criminalizing certain activities
and making certain things seem more violent and savage
when in the same case it's all the same, it's all the same act and mentality that goes into murder, the necessity to feed your family
Suppose it weren't three, suppose it were thirty
three hundred
one life to save three hundred
we're in wartime, three thousand
suppose the stakes are even bigger
suppose the stakes are even bigger
I think it's still the same deal
Do you think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do
is to add up the collective happiness? Do you think he's wrong about that?
I don't think he's wrong but I think murder is murder in any case. Well then Bentham has to be wrong. If you're right he's wrong.
Okay, he's wrong. Alright, thank you. Well done.
Alright, let's step back
from this discussion and
How many objections have we heard to what they did?
We heard some defenses of what they did
the defenses had to do with
necessity, their dire circumstance, and
implicitly at least
the idea that numbers matter
and not only numbers matter
but the wider effects matter
their families back home, their dependents
Parker was an orphan
no one would miss him
so if you
add up
if you try to calculate
the balance
of happiness and suffering
you might have a case for
saying what they did was the right thing
then we heard at least three different types of objections
we heard an objection that said
what they did was categorically wrong
Mike here at the end
categorically wrong
murder is murder is always wrong
even if
it increases the overall happiness
of society
a categorical objection
but we still need to investigate
why murder
is categorically wrong
is it because
even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights
and if that's the reason
where do those rights come from if not from some idea
of the larger welfare or utility or happiness question number one
Matt said
a lottery would make a difference a fair procedure
Matt said
and some people were swayed by that
that's not a categorical objection exactly
it's saying
everybody has to be counted as an equal
even though at the end of the day
one can be sacrificed
for the general welfare
that leaves us with another question to investigate
why does agreement to a certain procedure
even a fair procedure
justify whatever result flows
from the operation of that procedure
question number two
and question number three
the basic idea of consent
Kathleen got us onto this
if the cabin boy had agreed himself
and not under duress
as was added
then it would be all right to take his life to save the rest
even more people
signed onto that idea
but that raises
a third philosophical question
what is the moral work
that consent
does
why does an act of consent
make such a moral difference
that an act that would be wrong taking a life without consent
is morally permissible
with consent
to investigate 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 viewers of Justice
join the conversation, take a pop quiz
watch lectures you've missed and learn a lot more
visit justiceharvard.org
it's the right thing to do
funding for this program is provided by
additional funding provided by