Comments for Justice with Michael Sandel

Comment on Cool Philosophy by Gordon Gamm

Gordon Gamm — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:03:47 +0000

One does not have to repudiate utilitarianism in order to justify pulling the switch for the train to take another direction. However, pushing the fat man off the bridge would violate utilitarian principles because it would exonerate a murderer for presuming to have perfect knowledge about a complex of unknowable factors, including knowledge of a comparison of his girth versus the girth of the fat man.
In the absence of supernatural or God based laws, there must be other ways that laws and precedents have been established for resolving conflict and punishing dangerous social behaviors. These laws were established by social convention of decisions that resonated with the public's sense of justice. When legal precedents no longer resonate with judges because of new understanding about the human personality as a result of findings from the social sciences (segregation of children by race undermines their self image of human dignity) and experience (rape victims may be excused from questioning about former sex activity on cross examination), then those judges may evolve new precedents that reflect a contemporary sense of justice.

Comment on Cool Philosophy by Gordon Gamm

Gordon Gamm — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:00:37 +0000

Utilitarian calculus isn't merely about taking into account the consequences of a single act in pleasure/pain considerations. For examples, we have structural laws that reflect overarching values that resonate with the public's emotional sense of justice. We permit defendants charged with crimes to be entitled to representation in spite of their apparent guilt. We exonerate defendants from crimes by dismissing evidence that was illegally obtained although it would have proven their guilt if it had been admissible. The principle of a right to council and the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizures can be justified by utilitarian principles, although in a particular case it may result in a defendant who is guilty of the crime to which they are charged from being punished. Similarly there are precedents that were established by utilitarian considerations that would excuse a train engineer for switching tracks where his reasonable judgment was that more harm would be done by one route than another (even if on reflection that his judgment was wrong.)

Comment on Cool Philosophy by Gordon Gamm

Gordon Gamm — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:56:45 +0000

. The enlightenment and Utiltarianism recognized the significance of human emotion and experience in their impact on judgment about public policy and morality rather than unquestionable dogma derived from claims about God's laws.
Prior to late 17th century, happiness was considered a matter of luck or virtue or divine favor. (McMahon, Darrin M., Ph.D., YES Magazine, "A History of Happiness") After the enlightenment the pursuit of happiness became a liberating concept that enabled us to improve our lot in life, individually and collectively.

Comment on Cool Philosophy by Gordon Gamm. J.D.

Gordon Gamm. J.D. — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:51:58 +0000

The trolleycar/fat man bridge stories reflect the difference between philosophical abstraction and legal case law thinking. In a case, if a defendant charged with murder used the assertion that he pushed a fat man off the bridge to save five others, this would be so absurd as to not be admissible evidence. From a moral perspective it presumes that the defendant in a split second could determine that the fat man would stop the train whereas if he jumped off the bridge that his body would not stop the train. What would be the moral justification for picking the fat man over himself? Furthermore, by idetntifying the man as "fat" it colors the emotional response of the student deciding the moral question as a more easily dismissive object.
Utlitarianism was a great leap forward in moral thinking after over a thousand years of Aristotilian Scholasticism whereby the Catholic Church was the embodiment of moral thinking. Scripture and the finality of God's word according to the Pope trumped considerations from observation and experience before the scientific method and the enlightenment. Part 1 of two parts

Comment on Majority Rules by R.Geetha

R.Geetha — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:38:03 +0000

Once we had started to live in a civilization, we have given up individual right to live in nature. SO now we do not have choice, our ancestors have chosen for us. But we can express our opinion, we can protest and we can bring in reforms. WE have been doing that. For example slavery was ruled out,after ablishing it. Women got rights to vote, because we protested and got the right. Similarly, we are always bringing in new laws and getting rid of old ones, by choice. But complete freedom to do away with government is a choice we do not have. If we want we can emigrate and live in a place with a different government.

Comment on The Greater Good by Rachel

Rachel — Wed, 16 May 2012 00:40:14 +0000

Interesting equation. I believe I can see behind your reasoning and logic, but this makes me wonder whether or not you can dictate morals based on mathematical equations? If all ethical problems were solved this way, would it be moral and fair? Take the movie I, Robot for example. The robot saves Will Smith from a car accident because he had more probability of living than a young girl. Was this the morally correct choice? Was it fair?

Comment on Affirmative Action by Dave C

Dave C — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:15:02 +0000

With the degree of extreme wealth inequality we have in the US I would suggest that slots in elite universities should be filled based on one's wealth. The top 1% of the wealthy get 1% of the slots, the 2nd 1% gets 1% of the slots and so on down to the bottom 1%. Currently 75% of the students at elite universities come from the very wealthy families!

Comment on The Atlantic: What Isn’t for Sale? by Uldis Sprogis

Uldis Sprogis — Tue, 15 May 2012 10:02:19 +0000

Money can't buy smart, healthy, attractive, and athletic children and it is time that we offered this option to the public with genetic sperm banks that do just that for a price. A business in California has started along this path but it is still in its infancy and should be encouraged to do even better.

Comment on The Today Show: Paying Children to Read [Video] by Uldis Sprogis

Uldis Sprogis — Tue, 15 May 2012 09:47:22 +0000

Parents can motivate children to read by paying them and the public schools should pay the students for getting good grades in math, science, and technology which are high paying skills that the society desperately needs. It is time to end disasterous Liberal Arts education which produces graduates, over 50% of which can not find jobs when they graduate.

Comment on CCCB: Bioethics – Designer Children [video] by Uldis Sprogis

Uldis Sprogis — Tue, 15 May 2012 09:22:51 +0000

Genetics can be used for good or bad purposes and society should encourage good genetics. Handicapping a child with deafness, color blindness, autism, lesbianism, dwarfism,etc. because of a subjective appraisal of what is good for the parents is a bad use of genetics. On the other hand, choosing a child that is smarter, healthier, more attractive, and more athletic than the parents is a good genetic choice and will benefit the future of the human gene pool and should be an approved consumer behavior. Humanity should be evolving towards multifaceted genetic human superlatives and not single or multiple debilitating genetic traits.