Justice with Michael Sandel

Episode One

Share this content

Join the Conversation

The spirited classroom debate doesn’t have to end when class is over. Share your thoughts with other viewers from around the world. Join the ongoing discussion or start your own. Ask a question or respond to ours:

Public Discussion Circle

Comments (376)

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, September 2009, 7:59 pm

This is great!! Congratulations!!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, September 2009, 8:06 pm

Agreed, I'm thrilled to see the course online this evening -- can't wait to get started.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 17, September 2009, 4:20 pm

Agreed

(tbarwic) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 3:27 pm

I really enjoyed this. A brilliant mind, highly educated, extremely practiced, skilled and persuasive. Very logical thinking.

Here is the problem. The full perspective is lacking. Assumptions are wrong.

For example, the future is assumed known (without even realizing it). In the lifeboat example, they assumed they would die without killing and eating at least one other. But they might all have been rescued. They assumed that eating one would help, but they might all have died anyway. They assumed three surviving would be a good thing, but they might all have become murderers or worse. They assumed the life of the orphan was worth less than the men with families. They assumed the sick orphan would die anyway. They assumed survival was the highest good, but being right with the God of eternity might have been better for their eternity and all concerned. Etc.

Start with the wrong assumptions, get the wrong answer. Worse, get whatever answer you selfishly want.

If they had known the future, including the eternal future, the highest good for the greatest number, the most utilitarian choice, might have been to compassionately care for one another and do not harm to any, no matter what.

Ultimately all of the options are putting one’s own opinions and logic forth as the ultimate truth. It is also reasoning as an atheist who sees no higher Wisdom than himself and his fellows, but ultimately himself, with all of his self centered rationalizations deceiving even himself. It can all be seemingly very well reasoned, logical, persuasive, and even compassionate in seeking the highest good, and yet a deception.

P.S. Tho I have not thought much about it, if one had died on his own, I see no problem with eating the remains. Cannibalism is murder and eating the remains. The problem is murder, not what is done with the remains.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:42 pm

the problem with utilitarianism is that it's all about the greater happiness for the majority at the sacrifice of the interests of the minority. it is a ruthless system which does not acknowledge diverse ideas of happiness or need. it allows the possibility that 3 people should live at the expense of the 1, while never considering the sacredness and potential of all life nor the outrageousness of any philosophy which would condone taking away the most basic of human rights - the right to life. the problem with these case studies is that they cross legalities with moralities. Since when was what is legal also always moral?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, January 2010, 1:29 pm

about Razmik Alchian case #1832406
Using innocent People as Bait is a Murder it’s not The Moral Side of Murder

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, January 2010, 1:33 pm

about Razmik Alchian case #1832406
Using innocent People as Bait is a Murder it’s not The Moral Side of Murder

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, February 2010, 11:37 am

Michael Sandel should be the next Supreme Court Justice. He'd be WAY better than any of the semi-politicians currently serving. That probably means he wouldn't be confirmed.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, March 2010, 1:54 am

Great！

(1p1pd) said:

Sunday 25, April 2010, 7:02 am

Who can tell me why I can't see the video?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 24, June 2010, 3:35 am

realy great

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, June 2010, 11:45 am

Tbarwic, what you said was right for the most part, but in the last paragraph when you singled out atheists as being the only ones to put their own opionions forth as ultimate truth it was reeally annoying. First of all, who is to say that religiuos people see any greater wisdom than that of man,many of their gods may very well be false. Furthermore who is to say that religious people do not do the exact same thing as atheists and also put their opions forth as ultimate truth? They do this all the time the only difference is that the words of their gods influence their opinions wheras athiests’ opinions are usually not influenced by gods. Don’t get me wrong I am not an atheist, but I just can’t stand religious discrimination.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, August 2010, 10:24 pm

What if the boat boy among his superiors/crew members, who are by the way in a position of power and obliged to protect the less influential and weaker boy; but what if the scenario were different. The professor made one altered point of view, mines is the boat boy is a father and the other three are the mother/wife and two small children. The father offers himself to enable the survival of his family. Now is it wrong??

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 23, August 2010, 11:33 am

yes it is

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 25, August 2010, 6:40 am

great!!

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 25, August 2010, 6:41 am

great!!!

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, October 2010, 9:22 am

a very good lecture

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 15, September 2009, 7:27 am

In this case torture would be allowable, although other methods may be far more effective. Drugs, for instance, allowing for hypnotism. The best interrogation experts know that torture can seldom be effective.

If I were one of a dedicated group of terrorists I would have had the group plant 4 "bombs," three duds and 1 real. Then , if tortured, I would direct the police to a dud. I would also have planted two more minor bombs that would go off before the real one, thus distracting the police. This tactic, and others (car bomb, for instance), would make torture for location fruitless.

3. As a terrorist I would favor multiple car bombs. Far more effective in serving the purpose of terrorism, which is to frighten the general public and make them feel they cannpt be protected. Given the substantial funding provided certain terrorist groups, the multiple car bomb scenario would be affordable.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 8:14 pm

I'm surprised car bombs aren't more common, actually. It's extremely easy to obtain materials that can be mixed into low-level chemical explosives, and it's extremely easy to smuggle materials across state and even national lines in cars. Hijacking an airplane requires organization, planning... but detonating a car bomb seems like something anyone could do if they had a car, a few hundred dollars and the desire to cause gratuitous destruction.

(Zen Artist) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:59 am

"Unregistered" said:
"I'm surprised car bombs aren't more common, actually." ... "seems like something anyone could do if they had a car, a few hundred dollars and the desire to cause gratuitous destruction."

I think your answer is that most people don't desire to cause gratuitous destruction.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 2:08 pm

Great idea. Maybe you should open a terrorist training camp.

(McDuff) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 1:56 am

Congratuations, Zen Artist, for getting to the heart of the matter.

And congratulations to the unregistered individual for demonstrating why a career in the security industry is not for him, but a career in the Republican Party most assuredly is. Figuring out how people might attack us is the first step on the path to protecting against such an attack. Attacking knowledge or imagination as being unpatriotic or dangerous is the first step towards becoming a Congressman. One is useful, but the other is most assuredly more remunerative!

(ihawkx) said:

Friday 5, February 2010, 1:19 pm

The point of these lectures is not to ignore stupid options A and B, then move on to find option C – The real goal is to properly weigh options A and B and decide which is best. If this lecture were about finding option C, then Michael Sandel would concentrate on that far more than which option is better.

As it is, though, we must assume that the "Multiple Car Bombs" strategy is not an option. I'm not saying it's not a good topic – I think the Multiple Car Bombs idea is an effective one, and if anyone here had any reason to "cause gratuitous destruction", they would most definitely use that plan. I think that it would be more effective, though, if something really looked big without much actual destruction. The whole point is to cause a feeling of insecurity; no actual damage is necessary. A series of small explosions, for example. Or a number of explosions surrounding a certain area. I think that both of those would be sufficiently terrifying. The whole point of causing damage is to cause fear, and in many cases fear can be caused without damage.

P.S.: I'm 12 years old.

(Dreamwell) said:

Tuesday 15, September 2009, 8:00 pm

I think that every situation is unique and there isn’t a rule that can be applied in everything! Although, we suppose to have some principals in mind in order to approach those situations and in my opinion the most important is that: Everybody’s life values the same!

So, should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information? Yes, I believe that it should be, if there wasn’t any other option, and as a result of that there are two different cases.

A. If the suspected person is actually the bomber, even though I feel sorry for him, for the fact that he will be tortured, his is not innocent and it is less wrong torturing him to save the innocent people, who would have die otherwise, than let them die without doing anything.

B. If the suspected person is not the bomber, then, even though I feel even sorrier for him, police should take their chances. I mean that, the suspected person in this case, no matter how much I respect his rights, will get over it or maybe not, but the innocent people are definitely can’t get over death!

But if you questioning me about killing the bomber to save the people I would say no, no one should do that, that’s not right!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 8:15 pm

Really? You don't think it's legitimate to kill someone who is planning to kill many other people, given that there is no other viable option?

Evidently you oppose any conceivable instance of war ever.

Yet you have no problem with torture? I'm puzzled.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 2:02 pm

You had me up to everybodys life values the same.
That's true to a degree. Think of it like grades. Everyone starts with 70%, but at some point lives diverge from the same 'noble' path and one will inevitably become 'more' than anothers. The law views females lives over mens every day. Children over that of adults. It's the inevitable biproduct of a societys skewed moral judgements. As far as the torture, you can't subvert the law to uphold the law. You're just as guilty. Land of the free: as long as you can afford it. Home of the brave: As long as you can afford to not have to pay for it.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 20, September 2010, 8:29 pm

I understand and respect your opinions, but I have some problems with them...

Even if we suspect someone to be a terrorist, or even with what we consider "concret proof" calling them a terrorist is a matter of opinion, and human beliefs/intuition.

The only way to confirm their status is through a confession of involvement.

If they do not speak, we cannot claim them as a terrorist; therefore, we have no justification to torture.

On the other hand, an out right admission gives us our proof, but negates the use of said force.

Either way, it is a flawed process, but I felt I should bring these ideas/opinions to your attention.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 17, September 2009, 3:45 pm

Some societies, value the individual greater than do other societies. In our culture, individual rights prevent the non-voluntary sacrifice of the innocent bystander to benefit the group. However, there must be places in the world where the good of the group is paramount.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 2:09 pm

Asia

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, December 2009, 9:08 am

I don't think the answer to this issue, if there is any answer, depends on the culture.

(VERITAS21) said:

Thursday 17, September 2009, 11:28 pm

I think the issues being asked so far are purposely geered towards utalitarian mindsets, what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, in the case of the members of the boat, the largest issue in my opinion is that the cabin boy was, by definition, murdered. That being said it did carry some level of utalitarian philosophy being that it was the best thing for the survival of the majority but without the inclussion of a "lottery", vs the captain making an executive decision based on the "dependants" or larger fallout makes the hapenings in this situation morally reprehensible. I have created a discussion group that I would like to have some members that are committed to this entire series to join, to track how this series will change, expand and possibly reevalate our thoughts on certain issues. If you care to join please email me at hartman.joshua@ymail.com so that I can get you added to the registry. I think it will be incredible to see how not only my opinions will change but that of a group collectively. Thank You for considering innclussion and I look forward to constructive moral debate.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, September 2009, 3:45 am

It seems that we have forgotton the scientific theory that the fittest survive. The fact that the cabin boy was weak after drinking sea water caused him to be the most vulnerable in the circumstances he found himself. Why not kill the oldest? If rescued, the cabin boy would have potentially had many more years to live than the others and possibly have the chance to start a family and contribute to society in positive ways. Who is to say that his life was worth less or would be missed less than the others? Why was it okay to kill and feed on the innocent turtle in order to survive? Is it only human life that has moral value? Concerning consent...consider the draft verses enlistment. Are those who enlist consenting to die for the overall cause/consequence or for each other? ZHad the cabin boy died of natural causes, would there even be a discussion of a trial if they consumed him? The question for me is whether murder can ever be justified!
reply

(JasperAvi) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 10:32 am

Do you allow for capital punishment? Do you allow for murder to be an appropriate form of self-defense? Do you allow for suicide, which, for all intents and purposes, is murder of oneself?

If you're willing to bend on any of these, why draw the line here? We all seem to make allowances for murder under certain conditions. What makes those conditions inherently appropriate, while all others get left at the waist-side as necessarily inappropriate?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, September 2009, 8:27 am

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, September 2009, 3:24 pm

It is unsettling to see about 20% in the class felt that it was OK to kill the cabin boy.
reply

(crankyfranky) said:

Tuesday 21, September 2010, 2:31 pm

i do agree

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, September 2009, 4:49 pm

I think we are coming up against an irresolvable dialectic: that of morals and ethics. This isn’t to say that morals oppose ethics or vice versa. The ethic can be likened to a logic through which choices and actions are decided to be moral. Morality can be likened to the qualifier of any variable choice or action. The problem is two fold. We have no ethic of ethics. We simply have a multiplicity of logics that govern actions: categorialism, consequentialism, normativism, meta-ethics, etc. On the other hand, we have no codex of morality qualifiers for potential action. Instead, we must submit our action to the approval or disapproval of others. On both accounts we extend into infinity: that of moral actions, and that of logics of ethics. This is a sort of double bind into which the skeptic would have us fall. But this complex is far from portraying any laziness in our reasoning. Rather, skepticism here is a well-spring of possibility. It presents us with the materials we wrestle with. Laziness would be to arbitrarily choose which logic we are to use and which actions can be said to be moral or immoral. Laziness is to call an impasse what is otherwise a springboard. My pessimistic self believes that the pace of life often only allows us to choose arbitrarily, especially in our day to day dealings. But I’d like to think that we all have the will and want to assess the logics we employ, and to fairly reason our attribution of morality. I guess we’ll just have to see how it plays out!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, September 2009, 8:09 am

00c1c
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, September 2009, 8:15 am

Clearly the case of the stranded sailors was murder. Why? What if a rescue ship sailed over the horizon 5 minutes after they killed the cabin boy? How did they know this wouldn’t happen? If it was so necessary to kill someone in order for the remaining three to live, then why not simply wait for the weakest man to die? What if they kill the cabin boy and one of the remaining three dies 5 minutes later of natural causes?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, September 2009, 10:35 am

But if they all waited whose to say that they wouldn't, or at least one other wouldn't, slip into a coma, or become too exhausted even to eat, or wouldn't be able to digest the meat given because of the physiological effects of starvation? We face the same question, is the probability of multiple deaths acceptable when only one would allow the others to survive? We also can't forget that the cabin boy is sick and probably won't outlast anyone else anyway. And for all the sailors know, they have no other recourse. So say the cabin boy is really sick, and another sailor is drifting in and out of consciousness because he hadn't eaten the day before their ship sank. Are you suggesting both should be left for dead and that we ought to have faith in the rescuing ship 5 minutes off the horizon?

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 4:42 pm

The point about the possibility of rescue occurring after the murder is a good one.I think they should have let the situation unfold naturally and see if anyone died. It is wrong to take someone's life based on the reasons provided in this example. If one crosses moral boundaries by murdering an innocent person, what effect will that have on his psyche? How will crossing this line affect other people in his life and the decisions he makes in the larger society? Is life worth living if one so degrades the value of another human life?

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, September 2009, 11:45 am

With all due respect to the Professor, the lifeboat example is flawed. It's probably flawed, not because Professor Sandel couldn't make up a better case, but because he chose to use a real event as his example.

So first, let me give my reasoning to convict - that will point out the flaw.

I would convict, because the lives of the 3 were not in immediate danger. Since the cabin boy was obviously going to die first, they should have waited until he died to "dine on him".

The real moral dilemma would be made more obvious if all 4 lifeboat passengers had been in equal health. Perhaps that is the case that Prof. Sandel actually wanted to discuss. That's a more interesting case to me, because, for the reasons I gave to convict, the example used in class just seems like too simple a case to me.

Maybe that’s what makes moral dilemmas. To some it seems simple, and to others it seems simple also – it’s just that they favor the opposite view.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, September 2009, 3:51 pm

So what is your view on the harder hypothetical you have proposed? I ask because I had the same thought watching the show. Why not wait until one of the four dies, and then eat the body?

I don't think Professor Sandel felt restricted by the actual facts of the article--probably just by the length of the show itself. You will recall that throughout the show he changed the hypothetical in order to see if it would change people's views.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, September 2009, 10:17 pm

My view on the "all of equal health" case is that it's just plain old murder. Convict them and put them in jail - no death penalty - that's murder also.

metsci
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:51 am

Better yest, make them eat each other (alive) - one limb (each) at a time....

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, September 2009, 1:11 pm

I did my undergrad at harvard; not taking this class was my one greatest regret. How great it is that this class is now available free online! This is WONDERFUL! THANK YOU! ~edith chan '98
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 7:49 am

Fantastic opportunity, thanks WGBH!!! Weirdly, Michael Sandel looks and sounds like Ben (actor Michael Emerson) on LOST , a character who might benefit from taking this course.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 9:14 am

Killing the weak is always murder. Killing the innocent while trying to save others is not, but must be avoided at all costs.

Blood, uncooked and saline, is not survival food; it's death. Humans live six to nine weeks without food. Urine is of higher survival value. Only freshwater, collected from rain, would help. And, no, cooking the blood doesn't provide water unless you collect the steam boiled off. And the engineering is such that it won't condense. The cabin boy is total nonsense, and murder at least.

Try making a shoot/noshoot decision while being shot at, to be second guessed by attorneys in hindsight five years later.

Or, walk into a bank where a man with a pistol is holding 10 employees hostage with a bomb. The remote detonator is in his hand. You have a clean shot at ten yards. Is the switch a dead man switch? Is the bomb even real? Is there another robber? If you kill him, do you immediately evacuate the hostages? Is there a sleeper in the hostages if you do? Will the device detonate if you kill him and he falls on the switch?

Hurry, Harvard. You have three seconds.

No. Cops and FBI Agents and soldiers aren't "acting stupidly'" They make instant decisions, with imperfect information, with life or death consequences, every day.

The life or death decisions of Harvard types are carried out over decades, as abortion kills 60 million, as a shadow financial system creates the greatest economic inequality since the Depression, and as Wall Street pay increases even as 16 million fellow Americans are unemployed and homeless.

I feel for this Professor. He IS doing the right thing.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 6:17 pm

Perhaps Professor Sandel should do a lecture on exactly those life or death decisions you mention, that will be most relevant to them. You are right. Sigh.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 10:23 pm

Well, those copes and FBI examples you give aren't moral choices, they're judgement calls...

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:49 am

You make some very good points (about water, eating someone, and making quick decisions under stress with only limited information vs. having the luxury of pondering at leisure).

Like everyone else, you left out a real world factor: MONEY. Who lives and dies and who people are willing to kill in real life often is influenced by whether or not it is "profitable". What's anyone's life "worth" is something to ponder and discuss.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 10:27 am

Only wish I was 60 years younger at Harvard for this course. Fantastic!!
reply

(journey5956) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 11:34 am

If you would consider turning and hitting one person vs 5 or pushing the fat man off the bridge - would you consider throwing yourself off the bridge? If you were willing to push the fat man - why not yourself?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 11:47 am

This is exactly the reaction I had. It seems to me to be the clear answer. Maybe I am fat too!

(MaggieAN) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 8:24 am

I also wondered about the unasked question: Would 'you' the observer standing next to the fat man, leap off the bridge rather than push another off! My preferred thought was before the bridge/fat man entered the scenario. My reason for shifting onto the track leading to the lone workman was that maybe by shifting, I would create 'difference' - all the workmen, both group and lone, would 'look up' and get off the track in time. Once the bridge/fat man was introduced, I did not want to make a choice. My personal ethic would have told me it was up to me to leap by myself or not, leaving the fat man out of it.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 10, November 2009, 11:02 pm

throw a rock or something metallic instead, I mean just :D

(Grok) said:

Monday 14, June 2010, 12:54 pm

Well, the issue remains the same regarding utilitarianism: trading one life to save 5 others. While on the surface it seems more noble to sacrifice yourself because you're basically giving consent to forfeit your life in exchange for the other 5, you're still trading the one life for the many. Under the same absolute view, should an individual be held responsible for the 5 deaths for NOT throwing themselves over?

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 11:48 am

Nature had already exacted her cruelties on these men. Whose interest would it serve to have the State suppress their freedom upon their return? What good could they do in jail? They would not be murderers in society. The verdict should have been "guilty" of murder and the men given a symbolic sentence of 1 day in jail.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 12:27 pm

Thank you for letting me join this class. I love it!
As for the dilemas in class 1 - The categorical reproach of cannabalism or murder seems to prevent possibilities. If consent to a lottery existed with all 4 members and continued after the "loser" was selected, then it seems that the others would be innocent. But this assumes individuals have equal rights and the right to decide the fate of their own life. Is that a categorical argument itself (individual rights are paramount? I don't know.). The utilitarian perspective allows wide interpretation that I have trouble understanding how we could draw a line. The decision to kill one to save many, without consent, opens up pandora's box. Transplant example is excellent here. Any person could be nabbed and euthenized to save many with organ transplant. So do we need both ways of approaching things? I am more confused than ever, but really like the thinking this stimulates.
Finally, this professor is inspiring me to become and even better teacher myself. He has an excellent way of engaging students and teaching the content! thanks again.
Heidi
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 12:55 pm

No one has asked the appropriate question yet! You could jump! You could warn all concerned, You could be responsible to All involved.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 9:54 am

The appropriate questions: Would you jump on the track to save the five workers? Would you sacrifice yourself to save your hungry fellow crew members? Would you donate a kidney to save at least one of the patients?

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 2:36 pm

it is somewhat concerning to me that to some, 3 people who presumably could live without killing a young cabin boy (e.g. be saved, find fish, figure out how to collect rain water) can justify an outright slaying of another. Who's to say the cabin boy wouldn't have survived his plight? Maybe the greater good would be to ALL stay alive as best as they ALL could without making the choice of who's life was worth"less" than their own. If you step on a butterfly, the whole world changes. That is to say that who knows how many people the cabin boy, if allowed to survive and survives, could save or make happy in his lifetime. Isn't that an example of Bentham's greater good? Isn't that more "happiness"? An irony here is that they all presumed death would be a certainty when there were so many variables that could have presented themselves to avert death.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 5:44 pm

1. In general, is it permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people to prevent greater harm to a larger number of people? For me, innocence has nothing to do with the permissibility of murder. I don't think there can be a "general" rule, either. However, to answer the question as stated, I would say that it is generally not permissible to sacrifice the few for the many.

2. Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber? First, torture must be defined. However, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that torture means to cause severe physical pain in order to extract information. In my opinion, it is unacceptable to torture anyone for any purpose. It might be noted here that there is plenty of information available on the successful use of torture to obtain information. Apparently, torture is unreliable as a means of getting truthful information making torture even further off the scale of acceptability.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 6:58 pm

i would have to point out to unregistered saturday 26;
1. if you are faced with the situation in which you must harm a small number to prevent harm to a greater number and refuse to do so, then you just chose to harm a greater number to prevent harm to a smaller number. in effect, your only choice available was to allow harm to occur, or to prevent harm from occurring. your choice was to allow harm to occur.
2. the same reasoning applied to the torture scenario here. your ethically grounded choice to refrain from torture results in greater 'torture' or harm.

so the answers to these, and most ethical questions, is,

maybe.

or perhaps,

sometimes.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 7:07 pm

as for the lifeboat problem, it should be obvious that the boat is the only unsullied player in the drama, never free, always suffering under the bootheels of others. the sailors should all commit suicide immediately by jumping over the side and allow the sun to bleach any remnant of their existence away, thus freeing the boat to whatever destiny it, and the wind, have in store.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 7:15 pm

you could add to the reading list "Cannablism and the common law" which places Dudley v Stephens case in a social context. It is interesting to note that two sailors were convicted but released even though convicted. That suggests to me that society resolves this conudrum often by setting down a rule but trying individually temper the consequences.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 7:50 pm

I think one of the students was paid to wear a "Big K-Mart" hat.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 8:36 pm

Do philosophers believe that people's behavior can always be explained through moral principles? It seems to me that actual behavior is more often governed by relationships and - in the case of those in law enforcement, etc. - training than it is by ideas about morality. If we behave in a way that differs from our moral framework, is that a problem of inaccurately describing our moral framework or of just not adhering to it?

Even the scant details of the shipwrecked sailors make me wonder about how the interpersonal power structures played into the outcome. You've got a young, inexperienced kid with three veteran sailors who surely had a pecking order of some kind. Both the decision not to use a lottery and the choice to kill the cabin boy were probably at least partly dependent on how persuasively or forcefully the sailors were able to argue for their point of view. I can't help thinking of the Milgram experiment here - who, on that boat, would have seemed most like an authority figure? Certainly not the cabin boy.
reply

(MaggieAN) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 8:55 am

Power in relationship dynamics is an important consideration. It is my observation (with many years participation in human community while 'witnessing/thinking' about what's going on) that power is a primary factor in individual decisions made when faced with conflict between "justice" and "stable existing relationships". I do not think we, culturally, are aware of this. I see "co-dependency" at work. Underlying "fear" of "what will happen to individual (satisfactory) relationships" prompts most to "turn away from" opportunity to insist on justice. This unaware behavior denies capacity for individual autonomous action. It mis-trusts that new relationships might emerge that would be improvements. Lots of fear - fear of future, fear of unknown, fear of death. I do not claim to be 'fearless'! I do say we humans are unaware of the role played by a psychological state of fear in our decisions, and in the rationale we use to justify our decisions.

(ssesta) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 10:32 pm

Of course any case, even a simplified thought experiment, is going to be terribly complex, involving relationships, cultural values, etc ad infinitum. Moral Philosophy just tries to create a framework for disentangling and thinking about these issues.
It is not true that the 'murder is murder' argument OR Utilitarianism had to be wrong, however. The beauty and danger of utilitarianism and pragmatism is that they can be extended as far as you want to go. For four people to die instead of murdering one would result in negative 'happiness utility' to them and their families, but 'letting' four die to uphold a 'murder is murder' value proposition might contribute more net happiness to the entire country, world, species, etc if making that an absolute value as a rule adds happiness. Not that it's my opinion, but this sort of thinking should certainly come up if they get into capital punishment.
reply

(ew2200) said:

Wednesday 14, October 2009, 4:46 pm

Very good! Yours is the first post to note that the various ideas, be they 'rules of thumb' like Utilitarianism, or 'moral imperatives' like 'Thou shalt not kill,' are not mutually exclusive _even_when_they_conflict. I will note that the issue here is _not_ resolution of a specific question, but examination of the process(es) properly used to resolve _any_ question. Quibbling over specific answers is being stuck in the weeds. The question of specific right or wrong can itself be misleading; it pertains more to the ability of a particular system to resolve a question mechanically than to the morality of a particular human decision.
In the act of deciding a moral question, we should take everything we know about ourselves, the others involved, the situation, and what the moral guidelines tell us, and synthesize our solution. We have to weigh (probably without a mathematical formula) the relative pertinence and precedence of all the issues (murder, cannibalism, specific contracts, social contracts, law, families, tradition, etc.)that we are aware of, recognizing both that we can make mistakes, and that there is no better way of deciding than us opening our hearts and doing it. That is what Jesus (and Buddha, etc.) meant when he(they) said 'love thy neighbor.' It is so misunderstood because it is so difficult; to take the responsibility of weighing all the considerations, knowing you can fail, knowing that you may have to violate one or several important 'rules' or precepts, while trying to satisfy them all. It is a heavy burden, but defaulting either to inconsiderate (therefore inhuman) laws like 'Thou shalt not kill,' no matter how sophisticated, or ironically saying "I will just close my eyes and let God decide" is to fail utterly.
That being said, I believe the answers we are looking at are way too simple. For example, I believe that while the decision to eat the cabin boy is correct (if not most correct), it is also illegal. In fact, the sailors who chose this act, for their own good, recognizing 'survivor's guilt,' need penance (if done properly also benefiting society) and eventual absolution, and society itself not only needs to reassure itself about the importance of the laws against murder, but also to address it's own culpability in the situation. For example, maybe it is an appropriate response to require, at some expense to society, that water and food rations be stored in lifeboats. This type of moral response was seen, for example, to the Titanic disaster. Without larger responses to the very existence of the problem, specific questions about the more personal questions of the situation loose their context anyway.

(MCINTYRE) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 10:36 am

I like this, note that an addendum or the last line of the reading, after the sentencing and commutation made, the point if the three killed the one to survive and help did not arrive then were they justified in taking the second life and then a third? if so what then happens to the majority's happiness? is it not imperative to the majority happiness that the individual is respected securing the happiness of all even though all those in a particular small boat may perish? It is not merely the happiness of the 4 people in the boat or their loved ones but the happiness of all that is the concern.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, September 2009, 11:12 pm

so far, no one, no one, has addressed my comment - is it because it's banal, or b/c it's so pathetic that it doesn't deserve time. Love to know.
reply

(MaggieAN) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 8:58 am

Which comment, specifically? :)

(michelliott) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 11:21 pm

It's a no win situation. Why are the many more valuable than the few or the other way around. Why is one the weaker or the other the stronger. If no one kills anyone wouldn't one person be likely to die first anyway? And what's most important to me about this is that such a decision is made at the moment. And who knows what you discover about yourself in the moment? I'd be hungry, tired, scared and not likely to think that killing and eating some one is the solution to my problems.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 1:24 am

In the extreme, society heads down a dangerous path when those in power can decide who should live and who should die for the greater good.
reply

(Nina Lee) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 6:45 am

That's why 'those in power' should equal 'everyone.' Democracy is better than monarchy or oligarchy for maximizing total (present and future) utility.

(Niclas) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 2:20 am

The basic difference in having the driver switch between the tracks and throwing the fat man onto the tracks seems to be that in the former case the role of all potential victims is a passive one while in the later case the fat man is made an active player, similar to the involuntary organ donor. Why that difference results in a different acceptance level of the essentially decisions is, of course, another question.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 23, October 2009, 6:44 am

I believe you are on the right track (pun intended :o). In the fat man scenario you are actively forcing him into a situation he does not have to be put in. Whereas in the track switching scenario both the group of 5 and the invidual are involved in the situation no matter what you do. Even if you choose to do nothing, either the individual or the group gets killed. This is not the case for the fat man. Just because the fat man is fat enough to stop a train (highly unlikely) and happens to be in a position that you can push him in front of the moving train does not mean you should force him into the situation and kill him.

(Barbazzo) said:

Sunday 25, October 2009, 3:17 am

It even goes deeper than that... In the fat man scenario you are just an observer voluntarily getting involved in the situation by forcing someone else to get involved in the situation that will result in that person's death. You are also using that poor fat man as merely an (huge) object to prevent a trolley from killing 5 people.

(Nina Lee) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 7:12 am

Think about how you would feel if you were the track-switcher vs. if you were the man-pusher.

The difference is that pushing a person would cause you more negative utility (e.g. discomfort and guilt) than switching tracks would cause you. Furthermore, we know that in our society, you'd probably be blamed and prosecuted for man-slaughter of the fat man, which would cause you more negative utility. The blaming and prosecution would also be costly. Are all those consequences better than consequences of not pushing one man (and thereby letting the train kill 5 men)?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 2:37 am

704d6 Menu choices are hard enough for me, but I could imagine easily
passing on Grilled Cabin Boy, however enticingly described. That said, it is not clear to me whose decision in what position(judge, jury, proscutor, lawmaker, future sailor) we are supposed be imagining ourselves making. If it is optional, the role of Sovereign sounds intriguing. He or she is able weigh up the injustices, merits, neglected observations, and render a sensible verdict (e.g., the six month sentence credited with time served) and is able to offer suggestions for future improvements. Unfortunately we are not always blessed with an enlightend sovereign. One can live in Texas, like I did, where the sovereign apparently never even bothered to read any of the 150 or so execution orders passed his way. 704d6
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 7:50 am

It seems more acceptable morally for the onlooker to throw him/herself onto the tracks to save the five people or for the doctor voluntarily to sacrifice his/her own organs to save the five patients. If one of the sailors suddenly cried out, "Please, eat my body once I'm dead!" and slashed his own neck with the penknife without burdening others with the choice of whether to end one life (of course, someone else's) or three or five - well, I just think more highly of moral decisions for which you would be willing to suffer direct consequences yourself. In practice most people tend to treat their own lives (and those of their children) as worth more than others' lives. The trouble with all these philosophical hypotheticals is that they involve making decisions about what others should do rather than what you yourself should do. In other words: if it's so okay to push the fat guy or eat the cabin boy, you should be willing to be the one pushed or eaten.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:21 pm

love your reasoning and agree wholeheartedly

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 13, October 2009, 5:20 pm

PLAUDERTASCHE (I need to register...) Great points! I guess for the sake of philo discussions the presented scenarios are great mind food, and that what's all about, exploring what makes us tick. In real life though, how often do we find ourselfs in radical situations in which we have to make decisions on who is to die or not? I haven't (knock on wood) so I honesty wouldn't know how I would react if I ever find myself in such dilemma. I find it interesting to explore what makes one run into the "line of fire", safe others and risk their own life's and what makes an other "duck and cover" to save him/herself first. Like the guy in NY who jumped on the track to safe a person who fell on the tracks. It happened in an instant...there was not time for him to think much about what would be the moral thing to do. It happens more like a reflex then a well thought through decision. All he said was, I just did the right thing. Obviously "doing the right thing" is not so common, otherwise all the others passengers on the platform would have jumped as well. So doing the right thing is rather rare I think, even we like to see ourselves as being part of the group of people "who know to do the right thing", we are much (!) better passing judgment on those who don't do the right thing though. (Excuse my choice of words, English is my 2nd language). To the organizer: THANKS (!) for making this course available to all!

(jacobson98) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 8:11 am

The whole issue of consent in this case reminded me of the ongoing debate on the right to die in the US and in Europe. While all states in the US allow for a person to refuse treatment and maintenance (e.g., food) via a living will, only one state (Oregon) allows assisted suicide if a person is in a terminal state. A recent case in Switzerland suggested that European law recognizes a "right to die" through assisted suicide. If British law at the time of the instant case had recognized assisted suicide, would the consent of the Cabin Boy be sufficient to avoid a murder charge? Personally, I don't think so ... the Cabin Boy was too sick to give rational consent.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 8:24 am

note: there are also parameters

5 old people vs. 1 child

how long do we expect the 5 saved to live? the one who is sacrificed??

10 people vs. 2?

100 people vs. 85?

what if there is a chance that the fat man doesn't stop the trolley? a 10percent chance? a 20percent chance??

just think about all the possibilities, the question is a total mess
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 9:00 pm

Whether the fat man is Rush Limbaugh or not.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 8:34 am

Justice is to wish for others, what you would wish for yourself
reply

(JasperAvi) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 10:36 am

I can see this ideal falling into moral disarray VERY quickly.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 10:42 am

I agree with "Justice is to wish for others, what you would wish for yourself." If that is the only moral guidance one ever received, both the individual and the community would be off to a great start. That is not to say there are not complexities but this works well as a compass.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 11:16 am

@ JasperAvi - You might be right, but please give me a context in which this definition of justice will not hold (fall into moral disarray).

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 6:19 pm

Perhaps "justice" is not the correct word. I am thinking more along the lines of morality rather than justice. The Golden Rule concept does not insure justice. Justice is difficult to define and may well be impossible to achieve in many instances. For example, if a runaway trolley kills my spouse, what can possibly be just about any outcome? The harm is irreparable. At some level, it might be just to use the Eye-for-an-Eye concept. However, Eye-for-an-Eye justice does not consider mitigating circumstances. Should the trolley driver's spouse be executed as a result of the driver's decision to choose my spouse as victim of the trolley? Similarly, the Golden Rule does not provide a mechanism for dealing with people who don't agree to play by that Rule.

I must agree that the Golden Rule is too simplistic to be an answer by itself. Never the less, the concept works for me as I contemplate the rightness or wrongness of murder/cannibalism at sea and of the sacrifice of a fat man on to tracks of a runaway trolley. I am also comfortable with the Golden Rule as a basis for behavior toward those SUSPECTED of being enemies although at this point it feels more complex though I am not sure that it actually IS more complex.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:35 am

Justice implies what is "right" and/or is "fair". Most things in life are neither.

(ew2200) said:

Wednesday 14, October 2009, 5:23 pm

Funny; the moral disarray that JasperAvi sees is the same seen by the Pharisees. It is a correct observation with an unsupportable supposition; that 'Moral array' is possible, and that it's approximation by inflexible rules is satisfactory. You have to give up your idea that 'moral array' is possible without horrible suffering and inhuman, dictatorial results. Read 'Slaughterhouse 5' or '1984' to see the inevitable result of inflexible rules. It is the imperfect, but striven for Love for all else that balances the conflicting, unsatisfactory formulaic responses in a 'lose-lose' situation into a heroic (risking failure) attempt to put it to rights as well as _humanly_ possible. The Golden Rule is many things, but it is not simplistic. It requires you to understand (to Love is to know) _all_ moral grounds (the law is _not_ waived), all personalities, all potentialities, and resolve them in the pain of your own personal knowledge of all the suffering involved. It describes the impossible, not the simple, but it asks not that you achieve it (that would be superhuman), but that, knowing you must fail, that you try your damndest anyway. It is a paradox, but it does work (even if no-one else uses it).
It is interesting to note that the nature of knowledge itself involves the same paradox. Though our culture (The West) covets analytic logic, by itself analytic knowledge is useless because it cannot be used to create original knowledge; it can only be used to _compare_ existing knowledge. Synthetic logic is required to create knowledge, but is itself incapable of resolving conflicts and inconsistencies, so we must (and do) use both. So the ethical rules and the moral process for combining, comparing, weighing, and deciding on the basis of them are intertwined, neither satisfactory without the other.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 12:46 pm

1. In general, is it permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people to prevent greater harm to a larger number of people?

In general, no. If our decision-making were flawless, then perhaps it would be permissible to sacrifice the few. The life-boat situation is a good example. As others have pointed out, simply waiting for rescue might have been a better choice.

2. Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber?

The answer might hinge on whether the bomber is 'suspected' or known without a doubt. In the case of a suspected bomber, consider that the bomb is estimated to kill 1,000 people. Would it be justifiable to torture 999 in the hopes of saving 'the greater number'? Too hard for me.

*** Great stuff. Perhaps the most valuable lesson is that answers often aren't easy nor black or white. A good thing to bear in mind with so little in-depth analysis of issues facing us today.
reply

(michelliott) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 11:37 pm

In real life I'd be very unlikely to know all that is given in these moral dilemmas. I believe that the means justifies the end, not the other way around. That I must proceed as best as I can to do what I think is right. If not killing, torturing, harming, sacrificing, is the right thing at that moment, that is what I wish I would do. All I have is the moment. The past is gone, and the future hasn't arrived.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 1:02 pm

No, it is not better. When random persons place themselves in a role of executioner we sacrifice our civility as a society. Moral strictures are what separate us from other animals. The cabin boy did not create his circumstance, ie, no surviving family members, etc. For the others to take it upon themselves to dictate that he was least worthy to live shows a blatant breakdown of morality on the lifeboat
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 1:15 pm

If I were the second-weakest sailor, I'd be pretty nervous. My choice is to wait to be murdered or kill the other two. (Assuming we don't get rescued.) How long do I wait to kill the others?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 11:28 am

Beautiful! You point out a question that came to me very early on...Are the other two sharing the food with me to keep healthy enough to resupply them later?

(divathinker) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 1:29 pm

Thanks for the opportunity to attend the course! One wonders if the youthful perspectives will be tempered by living. I was quite surprised to see that only 20% of students approved killing the cabin boy AND that in the actual case the sailors were found guilty. One can only imagine these circumstances and the desperation that hunger, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, and sheer terror would enhance. Perhaps the problem with our system's jury of peers is that jurors can only use imagination and not experience to judge the acts of others. I say reverse the verdict!
reply

(Gregory Haley) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 1:40 pm

The thoughts that the cabin boy is somehow inferior because he has no family carries with them the underpinnings of bigotry. Cabin boy did not create his circumstance. It is morally wrong to issue out a death sentence to him simply because of his station in life. Where would future lines be drawn? I can own another human because he has different skin color? Genocide is OK if someone worships a different God than I? We've already been down these roads and we have clearly condemned the behaviors and killing Cabin Boy to survive a few more days is no different. When random persons can eke out death sentences for their own personal gain we lose the morality that separates us from lower life forms. THANK YOU HARVARD, FOR PUTTING THIS CLASS ONLINE FOR THE REST OF THE WORLD TO LEARN FROM. WHAT A WONDERFUL CONCEPT!!!!!!
reply

(Gregory Haley) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 1:53 pm

On The Moral Side of Murder: First off, I'm a fat guy so I really have a problem with this scenario. Secondly: When the observer makes the decision to leave the role of observer and become participant, it's a big deal. A REAL big deal. Now, observer is becoming executioner. Who are you to decide to take my life to save others? If you, observer, tell me, Fat Guy, "Hey Fatso jump in front of that train and save those five lives!" and I do so willingly, that's OK. Someone might name a bridge or at least an ally after me. But if you take it upon yourself to give my life for others you are effectively playing executioner and who put you in charge?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 2:17 pm

I cannot commend too highly those responsible for making this program available. An opportunity of this caliber... to be 'made to think' on an expanded scale... does not often present itself to the public. As one who has been 40 years out of the academic community, I look forward to listening and learning from the presenter as well as the participants. I am sure that the 'assured' opinions of some, expressed to date, will no doubt be revised after exposure to the entire couse... and isn't that the point?!
Thank you, thank you, thank you. See you next week.
reply

(galit) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 2:48 pm

Thank you very much for making these lectures, readings and discussion guides available to the public, free of charge. As a nurse practitioner planning a career in the ethics of palliative and end-of-life care, I find these general lectures and readings very useful. Thanks again.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 7:05 pm

Excellent, so far. I only wish that they had closed captions for the online video (I am deaf).
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, December 2009, 7:44 am

The episodes that are posted on Forum Network are fully captioned. The YouTube episodes are not. They should be (YouTube supports captions) but they are not. Go here:

http://forum-network.org/series/justice-whats-right-thing-do-series

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 8:07 pm

The real lesson is that Harvard undergraduates are as stupid and uninteresting as undergraduates at state school.
reply

(MaggieAN) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 9:05 am

Uncalled for characterization - just wanted to mention. Thanks.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 8:32 pm

In a just world, they would have eaten the captain and then, when they got home, eaten the merchant who financed the expedition, as well.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 8:58 pm

And then they would have eaten Benthem, while they were at it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 27, September 2009, 9:39 pm

Trolleys come with warning bells, I wouldve been ringing the heck out of that bell and praying that onlookers would be screaming warnings to the five workers.
In regard to the sailors, when society puts itself in the position of judging whose life is more "valuable" than another's, then society is treading down a very dark and dangerous path..
ie: is a soldier's life more valuable than a poet's life? Is a farmer's life less valuable than a doctor's life?
Society needs to set the standards and then apply the law accordingly. The "punitive" measures can be altered to accommodate the unique circumstances.
reply

(Xorox) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 2:03 am

Excellent program
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 9:12 am

In the case of the shipwrecked crew, I definitely see what they did as morally wrong. Why do they have the right to take someone's life? I do believe that consent would make a huge difference in the issue of morality. If the Cabin Boy knew what was happening, realized that he was going to die and that by sacrificing himself he will ultimately help others, (i.e. the families of the crew), then the boy is a martyr and more morally ok. However, if I were in this particular situation I would wait until the Cabin Boy died and then consume him. I also don't like how the Professor was saying that no one would miss the boy just because he doesn't have a family, when in the beginning of the lecture the story stated that his FRIENDS did not want him to go. Doesn't one's friends become their family in situations similar to the Cabin Boy's? I believe they do and I did not agree with that statement.
As in with the case of sacrificing a small number of people for the sake of a larger number of people, I believe that the larger group should be spared. I liked the example brought up in the lecture about September 11th. How the airplane that crashed into the field sacrificed their lives instead of allowing the deaths of hundreds of others including their own. I think that takes a lot of bravery and is very admirable. It is nice to know that people can be unselfish and self sacrificing for the benefit of others.
This lecture really makes one think about their standards and views on various moral issues and I think that is very important especially in a today's society where the overall moral system is declining.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:26 pm

with all due respect, they didnt really sacrifice their lives in pennsylvania....they were going to die anyway and their only choice was where.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:32 am

No wreckage or remains were found in the field in Pennsylvania (or the Pentagon). Lives lost or acts of bravery and sacrifice cannot really be discussed until actual verifiable evidence of crashed planes is found.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 9:14 am

“The case of cannibalism” is clearly a case of murder, because there is an alternative that saves three lives with out killing any one.

The essentials 0f the case as presented:
1. The death of the cabin boy happened on the twentieth day after the shipwreck.
2. They had no water during this time.
3. In this case the three than had not drunk sea water there was no mention of illness or distress other than going without food or water for no more than twenty days...

Self-evident facts:
1. You cannot survive twenty days without water, therefore they had a source.
2. You can survive a month or more without food
3. This could be deduced for common knowledge at the time and now, e.g. hunger strikes and etc.

Therefore there was no need to kill on the twentieth day

There were two alternate scenarios available as follows:

First scenario: This scenario is to wait until some one dies and then cannibalize the body. It’s unlikely that more than one person dies at a time or that the remaining survivors will not be able to utilize the dead body.

Second scenario: If we presume that the sick mate is mentally competent, we can consider what I call “the grenade scenario”. That is, if on his own or by lottery he sacrifices himself for the greater good (falling on a grenade for the greater good).

In my opinion the first scenario servers the greatest good. It selects the less capable of surviving to die. If the youngest, who appears the lease likely to survive, survives, it increases this option’s greater good for evolutionary biological reasons

Before taking a life, one is morally obligated to exam all the alternative to see if the goal of the greatest good can be obtained without taking a life

There are other perhaps more interest, and significant questions raised by this exercise but they are not germane to the subject.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:25 am

As you point out, most hypothetical moral questions ignore important facts - in this case about "survival" (at sea), like exposure and dehydration being threats than starvation or that there is no guarantee that killing and eating each other would actually improve the chances of "survival" for anyone. In "real" life, there are almost always other options than (only) those someone else gives us and insists we must choose from.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 12:13 pm

The only morally correct thing to do is to offer oneself up for the nourishment of others, one cannot select another for the nourishment of oneself, that is morally wrong.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 1:03 pm

This is great. Why learn from books when we can watch precocious undergraduates muddle their way through?

Did I say books? Everything in this lecture can be found on a single Wikipedia page.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 3:47 pm

Two questions: 1) If you were one of Jesus's companions at the time of his arrest, would you have drawn your sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear? 2) Being a follower of Jesus, had you thought you might have prevented his crucifixion, would you have?
reply

(fusion444) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 10:41 pm

This question presupposes a belief in GOD. With that belief, whether you thought it or not, you know you would be powerless to do so, for it was the fulfillment of GODS word. JESUS himself had the power to stop the crucifixtion, and he did not.

(michelliott) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 11:49 pm

Fusion 444. How convenient. Why do anything?

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, September 2009, 6:57 pm

No one gets out of this life alive. We all must die but we can choose how we live. I would rather die than live with guilt of murdering someone so that I could live (I'm not talking about defending myself which I would do). Maybe it is because I believe in an after life and that there will be some assessment at the end of the day.
reply

(michelliott) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 11:52 pm

I don't believe in an afterlife, at least not like I believe you are referring yet I agree that murdering someone not in self defense is not likely anything I would be capable of.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, September 2009, 5:00 am

A categorical imperative against murder is not incompatible with utilitarianism, if we are seeking the greatest good for the greatest number does it not follow that citizens should feel safe and protected by their government? In addition, if there is no respect for individual liberty for all, simply liberty for the most dominant, then there will be a net decrease in happiness of society. No person knows when they will be vulnerable and in need of protection, thus without government protection of their individual liberty they will never feel safe. As murder is the ultimate violation of autonomy and suppression of personal liberty it would make sense for a utilitarian society to prohibit this.
reply

(michelliott) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 11:59 pm

If society didn't protect the individual and recreated the natural laws, like survival of fitness, there would be no reason to take part. It would basically be useless. We'd have no need for it. We'd have more rights and freedoms in the wild. This coming together has to make sense or it's useless.

(casebritain) said:

Tuesday 29, September 2009, 4:12 pm

I do not understand why this is being debated. The solution seems simple here. Murder is wrong in all circumstances in which the life taken is stripped of his/her right to choose death. If the cabin boy consented, the murder is justifiable. Torture, then, is never ok regardless of the number of lives it will save (which is only speculation).

Following this logic would force us to conclude that capital punishment and abortion are also almost always wrong. Abortion is slightly more complicated because birth could threaten the life of the mother, in which case both lives have to be considered.

To recap - murder is ALWAYS wrong when the rights of one individual are ignored.
reply

(mannacio) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 1:03 pm

Oversimplification. If murder,as you define it, is the intentional killing of another human being then there clearly are exceptions. Keddaw points to one: A hostage taker. And, unless you exclude from your definition of murder Trolley car like incidents were your choice is a "Hobson's Choice" of killing one or five your ALWAYS is also too strong. Now consider this: Suppose the cabin boy was not killed but simply encouraged to drink more salt water. Is that murder is he does so of his own free will?

(keddaw) said:

Wednesday 30, September 2009, 4:22 am

Having previously thought about the trolley problem and got stuck on why pushing the fat guy is different from changing direction I have come up with a reason...

The incidental, or accidental, killing of the person further down the track is an unfortunate side effect of trying to save the five. That is morally aacceptable and justifiable.
The purposeful, or intentional, killing of an innocent to save others suggests you have placed a relative value on the lives of all involved and come to the conclusion that some people are worth more than others. You may be correct, but society does not allow an individual to make that choice - chaos lies that way.

So, morality, as agreed by modern society, deems it appropriate to accidentally kill while trying to save lives but not to intentionally kill to save lives. With the one exception where the life you take is the one that is placing the other people in harms way, e.g. killing a hostage taker to save the hostages.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, September 2009, 6:04 am

The question is "is it murder?" The subtext is "what would you do?' Yes it's murder: at least for me. I can see why others might not think so. What I would do is more complex and I am not sure that sitting in a climate controlled room, well fed with the expectation of further nourishment at my will is useful in informing me about my behavior in extremis. I wish I could say I would take the high road but I have serious doubts whether I would be a moral saint in the event. In that case there are two different qutstions. Would I kill? I can't answer. Certainly, I would prefer that someone else delver the fatal blow. Would I eat? Still, I am unable to answer. The taboos--social and internal--for both conflated with the nature of the necessity seem to me beyond rational prediction. If I did either I would have to live with my unexculpated guilt for the rest of my life with this traumatic event informing my every act. And I suspect this way of handling these kinds of dilemas is what has led to moral growth of the human race.
reply

(pic) said:

Wednesday 30, September 2009, 11:34 am

I could object to that:

i) Under conditions of "extreme scarcity" such as those described in this example, where vita mea, mors tua, there is no reason to ask whether a certain behavior is just or not;
ii) The higher imperative of any animal species is to secure its own existence, and pass its genes to the next generation. If if be the case that the human race be endangered so that it should use some individuals as means for that end, in that hypothetical situation it would be fine. We owe our very existence to the fact that other individuals did so millions of generations ago.

So, when situations of "extreme scarcity" arise, it isn't just valid to ask those questions. This is why, e.g., criminal law affords an excuse to those who do a certain behavior which would otherwise be regarded as a crime due to "state of necessity".

Cheers,

PIC
reply

(keddaw) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 4:19 am

"The higher imperative of any animal species is to secure its own existence, and pass its genes to the next generation."
Nope! The higher imperative of all animals is non-existent. The existence of homosexual animals would bear this out. Other examples would be the drones in insect colonies who work tirelessly for their siblings and cousins without breeding themselves: their sacrifice enhancing the propagation of SOME of their genes indirectly through relatives. In addition, humans have gone beyond all animals in the ability to see the biological imperitives for what they are and choose to act on them or not (diets and contraceptives are perfect examples).

As to your call for extreme scarcity, if you are an airtraffic controller and someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to crash a plane, would you? (I would!) There is a moral question to be asked. The law may deem you not culpable but you and society may consider yourself guilty. But that is the extreme end; killing to survive. What if the person was threatening to cut off a limb? Should you crash the plane then? What about if they threatened to sever your spine leaving you paraplegic? What if they were going to give you a really bad wedgie? Where do you draw the line? When does your own well-being supercede the survival of others? These are interesting questions.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, September 2009, 1:15 pm

I would have to say that killing someone on a split second is not murder if not meant to be, like the fat man.
I belive It's better to kill 1 and save 5, depending on the situation.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:06 am

Depending on the situation? What criteria determines what's "best" in any given situation - especially regarding the lives of OTHERS?

Does the NUMBER of people matter more than WHO the people are (or what they may be able to contribute if they live)?

If killing 1 person could "save" 5,000 (instead of only 5) would that change anything?

What if that 1 person could save 5 million others (if 5,000 died instead of only 1)?

We seldom know what ANYONE can contribute until after they do - which is a lot easier while still alive.

How ready are you to kill (or be killed) - especially when you do not know how things will turn out (either way)?

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, September 2009, 2:23 pm

No.
On the boat all 4 were in danger of dying, including the eventual "contributor".
In the hospital, the eventual "contributor" was ONLY in danger BECAUSE he was drafted to be the "contributor"
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, September 2009, 3:50 pm

I apologize if this has already been said.

In the case of the 5 vs. 1 trolley accident, don't forget that a choice is made one way or the other. The act of not switching tracks is not an act of letting "fate" take over and choosing not to choose. It is as much a choice as switching tracks to kill one. This would be more apparent if there were two tracks to choose from, neither of them being the "default" track. Ie. If you had to push a button choosing track one or track two, you couldn't just barrel on in the same direction with the argument that you "decided not to choose," but rather you had to pick exactly one track or the other, I couldn't imagine many people finding themselves justified by choosing 5 over 1. It sucks either way.

The questions over whether there's a bell on the trolley or a window to yell out of, or, indeed, whether the trolley is itself loud and large enough for the workers to hear or see in time, are really only artifacts of an example that can't, without becoming too complicated, account for all the contingencies. Hypotheticals like this should be considered closed systems in which there are no alternative options, etc.
reply

(mannacio) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 12:50 pm

The world, dear sir, is complicated and omitting those complications is oversimplification which may lead to the wrong conclusion. In the world of Physics, Einstein performed "thought experiments" but they were designed to take all the known data into account. As a result his Theory of Relativity predicted results different from Newton. Neither scientist nor ethicist should ignore the facts that complicate a situation because it is convenient. Convenient may also be wrong.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 28, October 2009, 3:21 pm

"Hypotheticals like this should be considered closed systems in which there are no alternative options, etc."

Finally, someone has made this point! It's surprising to me how many people don't seem to understand the use of hypotheticals in focusing an issue or an argument. It doesn't MATTER what the salinity of sea water is or whether the fat man could stop a trolley or that most trolleys have bells. We ASSUME the facts to be as stated in order to clarify the moral issue: IF this were so, what would be the right thing to do and why? Dragging in a lot of irrelevant possible contingencies is just a way of refusing to face that moral issue.

(Welkabonz) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 9:39 pm

The interesting thing here is that 'society' does not exist in a survival of the fittest, kill-or-be-killed situation. It's out of the jurisdiction of the Crown. It's out of the jurisdiction of human morality. This is because morality is based on the survival of man as a rational being in a rational society. Note that when you are put into a 'fight or flight' situation, the neocortex shuts down and the R-Complex takes over. Man is a rational animal. This is not a rational situation, and a different morality takes over. John Locke and others have said that without government, life would be "nasty, poor, solitary, brutish," and everyone would use physical force to protect their property from others. Governments, therefore, are instituted in order to protect our rights, given the right to physical force to protect our rights. I would love to discuss this more with the Professor.
reply

(fusion444) said:

Thursday 1, October 2009, 10:20 pm

I have read a number of these replies, and have not come across any that presuppose the belief in a higher power. Try putting the principle of loving your neighbor as you love yourself, in all situations, and you will quickly see that it morally cannot be violated. I welcome anyone to present a hypothetical situation, and I will show you how this simple and obvious principle directs the proper course of action.
reply

(Welkabonz) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:37 pm

That is impossible because you and your neighbor are two different people with two different ambitions. What happens if your neighbor demands a sacrifice from you -- something which demands that you ignore something of value to you for something of lesser or no value? That would be contradictory because if you love yourself you cannot make a true sacrifice; therefore, in such a scenario you would be placing love for your neighbor above yourself.

Granted, we are talking about two totally different moralities here.

(keddaw) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 1:34 pm

The so-called Golden Rule is a gross oversimplification and misses out many nuances and situations that humans find themselves in, e.g.
If you hear someone being harmed and rush to their aid, only to find out it is a mutually beneficial sado-masochistic relationship you cannot allow it to continue due to the golden rule, but they want it to.
If someone kills their parents for the inheritance the golden rule does not really allow for them to be put in prison, they have killed the only parents they will ever have the damage is done.
Does the Golden Rule allow the US to attack Mexico if Mexico is picking on Paraguay? If so please tell me how this fits in with loving your neighbour.

None of which has a higher power anywhere near it. Love thy neighbour was not handed down by god, neither was it invented by Christianity. We have to make the best of this world as we find it, not go looking for answers from a sky daddy. This is why god has not been mentioned. God and morality are an oxymoron.

(ew2200) said:

Wednesday 14, October 2009, 5:44 pm

Use of the Golden Rule does not presuppose belief in a higher power. It is very powerful, but it should be emphasized that its use does not guarantee moral rightness, and on the contrary, may lead you off the path of established law in the quest for a better way. It just happens to be the best guide, but the path has no rails, and you have to keep all your wits about you. To Love is to suffer, but in a good way, like the aches after satisfying exercise. The golden rule is _not_ an imperative to do what anyone else says - it is an imperative to lovingly understand their point of view, and everyone else's. It is, for example, the root of all ultimately successful negotiation, and by that I mean it is _not_ capitulation. It is also not simple. (See my earlier post in reply to (ssesta), Saturday 26, September 2009, 10:32 pm)

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 2:52 am

There is another reasoning that causes more revulsion in the scenario of pushing the fat man onto the tracks. What if the fat man did not fall on the tracks, but perished anyway from the fall. You have not only killed the fat man, but also have not prevented the killing of 5 others.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 4:57 am

I've watched through episode 2 and am enjoing the series immensely. I've actually been through the cost benefit analysis question before when, in my first meeting to decide the cost benefit of a building to be built it was revealed in the insurance discussion that, despite our best efforts in safety, actuarially, three people would die in accidents while building the building. I immediately wondered why, knowing that three people would die, we were even considering the proposition. Certainly there were vacant buildings that could be made to accomodate the use with far less danger to human life. The building in question was a county courthouse wherein justice was supposed to be dispensed and so it made the question far more difficult than it would be if the building were a casino or strip club. While, on the surface, this might be analogous to the Pinto cost benefit analysis. I think that there are vast differences. First, every possible safety precaution is used when building a building. Second, construction workers know and accept the risk of working on a building. Third, the inherent risk of this building was no greater than for any other building of its size. What made the Pinto case so shockingly abhorrent is that Ford's product was inherently more dangerous than similar products and people buying the product had a reasonable right to assume that Ford had gone to all possible lengths to make it so. Ford had a moral obligation to either fix the product, even if it meant passing on that eleven extra dollars to the consumer or to make the consumer aware of the risks that they were taking by not spending that extra eleven dollars,
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 6:04 am

My question is this...in all of the examples given, the final arbiter of who was and who was not to be killed did not make the only moral decision, to end his own life to save the others. If we are to accept the premise that the greater good is served when the greater number of people benefit; if a death in required for the rest to survive, then the only moral decision would be for the arbiter of the decision to sacrifice his own life for the others. If Dudley clearly saw that one must die so that others might live, why dis he not plunge that pen knife into his own throat? If the person on the bridge clearly saw that an obstruction on he track would divert the trolly and save lives, why not jump onto the track himself? The doctor with patients who need a transplant doesn't consider giving his own organs. In my opinion, it is foolishness to pose a question wherein a life must be sacrificed in order to save many others and then not consider one's own life to be the one to be sacrificed. The value of al lives considered being equal, the only life one may morally consider taking in order to save others is one's own.
reply

(tboyce) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 6:24 am

The above was my post before I registered. I apologize for spelling mistakes. After an accident, I have spent the last year or so learning to use my hands again. I beg your indulgence and will try to minimize the mistakes.

(Welkabonz) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 3:39 pm

That contradicts the idea that all lives are equal. If all lives are equal, it is immoral to die for others. Dying for them means placing their lives upon a higher moral value than your own.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 7:51 am

If given a chance to be one of the jury, Dully and Steven Not Guilty. if we put our selves on that event where no foods, water and hopeless, its moral and appropriate way they do, to put peace and harmony in boat. or else chaos will happen coz one must survive to the other.

kingsbury
reply

(zaptruder) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 8:48 am

Thoughts regarding part 1:
Categorical moral reasoning is a derivation of consequentialist moral principles.

That is to say, the hard ideas on what is right and wrong are essentially a blanket rule of thumb action to ultimately produce the greatest degree of good possible. Instead of expending cognitive resources at each instance, a rule of thumb is applied to keep actions consistent and quick.
While this is a great pro, the con is that it is less adaptable, and the premises, evidence, context in which this rule of thumb was developed may no longer be true, correct or applicable. Left unchecked, the hard coded moral reasoning becomes a societal boondoggle. A meme that perpetuates to overall negative consequences.

On the flipside, consequential reasoning is a per action or instance examination of what is right and wrong. The problem with it is the high cognitive load that occurs... in reality this means you get multiple rules of thumb (heuristics) flying around the persons head contradicting each other and they have to sort it out.
The cons is that you are liable to produce regrettable actions (i.e. you produce an inaccurate result due to lack of time processing the problem), but the pro is you are given more freedom to maximize the good in a potential situation.

In the part 1 examples given, there is at least another couple factors at work, that works to produce the results we see in the lecture hall; and that's cognitive distance from the direct act of responsibility - flipping a switch the direct action, the consequence is that the train veers to the right and 5 men are saved while 1 dies.
The next example is pushing a (fat) man over and blocking the train saving 5 men but killing 1. It requires more direct action than flipping a switch. Fast direct contact that results in a man falling to his death.
The next example is slowly and gruesomely extracting the organs from a healthy person in order to save 5 lives. Even though the results in all situations are similar, the distance of personal action is not at all similar.

The next factor to consider in producing the results we see is that even if we don't voice it, even if we don't think it, our subconcious churns away beneath it; the various modules of the brain work in parallel at a level that we cannot conciously percieve in order to produce the required level of neural noise that we percieve as conciousness.
In the latter example, with killing a single man and harvesting his 5 organs, it is possible that many have subconciously parsed the idea that it is not desirable to make a habit out of killing a healthy person in a hospital to save unhealthy lives... as you may drive all patients away from hospital healthy or not, in turn indirectly increasing the death rate beyond the initial benefit to 5.

It might not be expressed quite so fully in the subconcious, but certainly, this sort of additional factor is a consideration for the mind, and causes us a pulsating feeling of: "that sounds very wrong... even if I can't quite vocalize why!" when confronted with such a problem.

A healthy system of morality as a result uses a balance of both consequential and categorical reasoning; when time is available, decisions may be hashed out consequentially, taking into account all the variables that affect a situation and situations like it, beyond the immediate cost benefit analysis of lives versus lives, and then using that to modify categorical reasoning in general or per context... which in turn is used in time starved situations to produce reliable and reasonable results.
reply

(ew2200) said:

Wednesday 14, October 2009, 6:04 pm

Very nice analysis! I like how you cut to the core of the _process_ for decision-making! I think what you have described is the actual process of moral growth as it happens regardless of the particular mix of rules and methods for sussing them.
The first danger is permanent abandonment of growth for greedy, selfish, or lazy reasons. The second is the hijacking of those same systems merely to serve greedy or selfish reasons. Children who want a cookie have been known to stray, as well as bankers in corporate America.
I would add that there is an evolutionary component as well; just as we are consciously incapable of awareness of the subconscious processes, we are often incapable of assessing the complex interrelationships between causes and effects, especially in a changing environment (mores change, laws change, etc.), so we experiment; our legislators write a law in the belief that it will produce efficacious results. Then we practice it for a while to see how that works, we look to see how other places and people have succeeded. We attempt to derive principles, and we correct swings into bad moral territory (eventually, hopefully) by writing new laws. We _practice_ morality like doctors practice medicine, knowing that mistakes will be made, and striving for improvement, knowing that there is no better way.

(lazar) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 9:02 am

assuming that trolley horn didn't work, and that i was mute so i couldn't shout, i would switch to the right, trying to do the least of two "evils", or more accurately said - accidents. i may be wrong of course -- maybe lonely man on the right as about to publish a cure for cancer, while 5 men on the left are convicts, and i am doing actually a terrible thing and greater harm for the human kind with my choice.

assuming i was on the bridge, i would simply observe. after all, what can we do when for example there is an earthquake happening in australia -- we can only watch the news. what we can do when there is a hurricane happening in florida -- we can only watch the news. those are natural accidents and disasters. isn't the malfunction of a trolley brake also an accident (and disaster). or even, isn't the mad man in the trolley on purpose aiming to kill 5 workers also an accident of a nature (and maybe the societal surrounding in which the driver was living). there are things we can do nothing about. we are not gods. we can only try to not live in a place with lots of earthquakes. we can only try to have society where there will be few mad men. we can only try to have responsible companies which will make good brakes.

the exclusive question that was asked in a lecture puts a moral burden on me as if i am able to and responsible to do something. others here pointed out i could have jumped (if i was fat) to stop the trolley. well, would it stop it? wouldn't i risk my life in vain. it's only natural that life struggles against death, and asking for life to surrenders is pervertedly unnatural. if it was my family instead of workers, well then it makes a different story, i may decide to sacrifice myself. but again, that's another question, as obviously, our own lives and lives of our family are more important to us than lives of people we don't know. or maybe someone subjectively disagrees with this? but i think this example needs to be made more extreme, so that we can think more easily about it. instead of 5 workers, place 500 kids (maybe some even yours) there and a tank full of gas, where you know all will die if trolley hits it. why is it that kids lives are valued more than adults? i think because more innocence is assigned to kids, and they are yet to experience all the wonders of life.

now, what would happen if i had a sniper on the bridge and i knew driver was a terrorist. would i shoot at him? i think it would be more productive to shoot a bullet close to one worker so that they get scared and look around and see the trolley coming, as shooting in the terrorist won't stop the trolley which would keep going into workers, but warning the worker would help them move away. of course, now you can tell me my sniper won't reach to the workers, but only to the trolley.

so to the main question: Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber?

suspected means he may not be a bomber and may be innocent. lets consider some options:
1) not legal, and he doesn't reveal. police however finds the bomb.
2) not legal, and he doesn't reveal, main parts of NYC need to be evacuated, causes mess and panic, bomb explodes, people in more panic, some don't want to go back to work, economy disturbed...
3) legal, suspect tortured, has no information bomb explodes, police found incompetent and cruel, any citizen can be labeled a suspect in the future and tortured. not good for society which now starts living in fear and insecurity.
4) legal, suspect tortured, information extracted, bomb found. any citizen can be labeled a suspect in the future and tortured.

we should also examine some alternatives:

a. is there a need for torture, when there are non-intrusive ways to detect people's reactions to external inputs (showing images of different buildings for example may cause a reaction in suspect if the building with the bomb is shown). you place electrodes on person's head and record the signals.
b. people like Paul Ekman study detection of lies by observing facial micro expressions.

would *I* want someone tortured for whom i am not sure is guilty, so that a bomb is (maybe) found in my neighborhood. NO! i would rather evacuate for a while until the bomb explodes or is found.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 2:04 pm

Torture seldom produces reliable information.

When choosing who to hit or throw on the trolley track, don't forger to include yourself as an option - even though it was not offered.

(zaptruder) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 10:09 am

Thoughts on Part 2
Regarding the case for cannabilism

It is important to note here that this was a real situation. Real alternate solutions are available despite the manner in which the dilemma is framed. Similar to the solution from part 1, the most moral solution is simply to wait for one member to die before having the survivors consuming him and saving themselves.

However, empathy is something that we as a society need to do more to extend. In this case, the real moral dilemma is for society; what should be done with men driven to their very ends, on the edge of survival?

We should extend empathy not for their sakes, but for ours; by understanding how and why we behave in a situation, we are able to create more reasonable limits and exceptions to our natural behaviour. In some instances the mental circumstances are so strong and compelling that we excuse the behaviour. We often make the excuse for the mentally insane; that they did not know what they were doing. When pushed to the edge of survival, in the throes of starvation and thirst, the mentality of a person in such a situation is far different from the same person sitting comfortably in a lecture theatre, or reading their newspaper, or sitting in a jury.

In such an extrenuating circumstance, what is reasonable? What should we weigh it against? If we permit such exceptions, how much do we erode the general value and wellbeing of human life? Every time we make an exception for taking action against a human life, how much do we degrade the overall perception of human life in society?

I think in general people can understand context exceptionally well. The context is exceptional, and does not extend to the devaluing of human life in general circumstances. It is a partitioning of information and knowledge that we do so well that helps to save us from theoretical slippery slopes.

Extending empathy to the men in this instance and legally excusing them of their nonetheless abhorrent behaviour will not cause or even add to the proverbial haystack of social meltdown.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 4:54 pm

(1) It is not permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people for the survival of the greater number of people because murder is immoral.
(2) Yes. The man is not an innocent. He is a murderer because he has set into motion his intent to kill.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 8:39 pm

For those who keep adding parameters, or saying things like, "You should throw yourself off the bridge," you're missing the point. They are hypothetical questions and you shouldn't deviate from the scenario and choices as presented. It doesn't matter how long you can live without water, or when you could be rescued. Knowing only the information provided, what would you choose?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, October 2009, 10:16 pm

In the first part I followed the majority, and then spent a while considering what had changed. I concluded that this is an issue of perspective -- the point of view of the person in the example changes, and with that change of view, that change of context, what feels "right" also changes. As the driver of the trolley you are part of the scenario -- irrespective of what happens you are nominally in charge of the trolley-car and you feel (warranted or not) that you are going to kill the five men, so changing to killing one person is fairly obvious. On the bridge you are not part of the scenario but an onlooker...you are not in charge of the trolley-car, rail safety or anything else but merely an observer -- as is the man beside you. So you don't feel like you are going to kill five people, and therefore killing one person seems wrong. I'm not sure that would stand up as a moral argument, but I think it explains the change in opinion (also, it could -- after all, the driver and the workers all have an obligation to make sure they behave safely, and are partly responsible).

As for the life boat...First off, I don't think one should be scared of death, I think it's far more important to worry about what a person does in this life rather than how long the life lasts. Everybody dies, but not everybody murders. This is obviously an example of categorical moral reasoning.

Looking at this from the angle of consequentialist moral reasoning, I don't think people took into account all of the consequences of the action. One died so three could live (and those three had dependants, admittedly), but more than that the three survivors became murderers -- or at the very least accomplices to murder. The greatest good for the greatest number cannot include the greatest number becoming murderers. We are the result of our thoughts and actions, and I don't think they should be discounted as consequences. From the point of view of my spiritual beliefs murder is definitely wrong, but I hope that pretty much anyone agrees that it's better to not be a murderer than to be a murderer.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 11:27 am

The question is "should torture be legal?" not "is it ever morally permissible."

Should theft be legal because we can imagine situations in which it might be justified?

I think torture should never be legal; the burden of proof should lie heavy on the torturer - to make a case for mitigation of or relief from punishment based on the situation.

Plays and dramas in which the hero uses torture will typically make an overwhelming emotional case for the rightness of the act, as in the "ticking clock" scenario. If the hero is a true hero, concern for future legal consequences will not weigh in the balance.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 29, October 2009, 12:01 pm

hmm. how often, in plays and dramas, does the "true hero" torture the wrong guy?

While I see the usefulness of the scenario to provoke thought, doesn't it solve our moral/philosophical dilemmas to simply acknowledge that if something doesn't work reliably (in reality as opposed to theater) then it isn't the right course of action?

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 11:12 pm

The first case is almost laughable.
First of all, with the fat man, nobody seems to notice that the real reason it is not ok to kill the fat man is because there is a tacit understanding that workers on a railway track take on a certain amount of risk that they acknowledge when they go on the track. The workers know the risks. The fat man is just a guy on a bridge. This makes it more ok to kill the one worker than the fat man.
Secondly, the reason the audience comes to different conclusions is because they subconsciously dispute the premise. The case is impossible, in that no-one knows the certain outcome of a choice before they make it like that. What you really should be weighing is the CHANCE that 5 workers can get out of the way versus the CHANCE that one worker can. Then the moral choice becomes clear.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 3, October 2009, 11:16 pm

(1) It is not permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people for the survival of the greater number of people because murder is immoral.

(2) In answering this question honestly, I would have to go to the extreme and pretend as if my family were going to be killed if the bomb goes off. “Yes.” If there were no other way to get a psychopath to talk, then I would condone torture because the bomber is not an “Innocent.” He is a self-avowed murderer. He is a murderer because he has set into motion his intent to kill. Unfortunately, the reality is that even under torture the bomber, more than likely, will not tell the truth. He will probably endure the torture until the last possible moment and then lie about the location of the bomb. So in either event, torture or no, my family will die when the bomb goes off. And this is where I have my biggest struggle. My animal mind would want to harm the murderer, but my higher mind would know that I have done great character/behavioral harm to myself, and those around me, for taking revenge. Violence only perpetuates more violence. In the end it will destroy us all. In the final analysis, “NO,” I would not sanction torture, but if it is the last, slim chance that the bomber will tell us where the bomb is hidden, then I would agree to it.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:45 pm

Mr. Sandel are teaching are very similar to Dr. Mahmood Rahimpour of Iran? You may need to review his translated articles and find the answers to most of the philosophical issues of western and/or modern era. I do appreciate you as someone in the west that has finally began to publicize this type of needed philosophical engagement with the average citizen.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 10:46 pm

Mr. Sandel your teachings are very similar to Dr. Mahmood Rahimpour of Iran? You may need to review his translated articles and find the answers to most of the philosophical issues of western and/or modern era. I do appreciate you as someone in the west that has finally began to publicize this type of needed philosophical engagement with the average citizen.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, October 2009, 11:17 pm

Also, I believe in the strongest in the boat having the best immune system, should cut his arm and share his blood with the others in that boat and save everyone. The strongest should take volunteer to be the first to take the responsibility of bleeding for the wellfare of the others. The strongest among us must willingly help and volunteer to take the heaviest toll of pain to help the needed.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 5, October 2009, 7:16 am

(2) The scenario states that it is a suspected bomber, therefore, a) torture would not necessarily work considering they may have the wrong person and b) people under duress say anything. Torture would not be a viable option because it would be inconclusive - Guantanamo Bay is a classic example. This is a similar scenario to the preemptive strike on Iraq, which was categorically disproved by a collective of renown Universities.
reply

(TheGreatWhiteBuffalo) said:

Tuesday 6, October 2009, 12:47 pm

Questions:
1. Is it okay to harm a smaller number in order to save the masses? (Paraphrased) I say: The answer we are suggested to accept is a closed mindset. We are not looking beyond only one way to look at the problem or question. The right answer would be to work together to preserve all life if possible, how do we do that? We need to look at the paradigms fresh with new eyes.

2. We have a suspect who we believe to be a bomber, we need to find the bomb so we abuse the individual and they become more hardened in their heart to make sure the bullies don't gain the information that they seek. Is it not better to appeal to the humanity using empathy to quickly gain the information sought? Getting the perpetrator to communicate or share is the key. How do we get evil people to share? What do I have that you want? Why does a person seek to cause harm? What are the levels of frustration?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 2:46 pm

Bentham's Utilitarian morality is not in opposition to a categorical morality that says murder is always wrong regardless of the situation.
Not commiting murder, whether for a good cause or not is what would bring about the greatest happiness for humanity in the long run (the most happiness for the most people). Ultimately humanities happiness depends upon renouncing all murder. Any short term apparent happiness from commiting a murder is dwarfed by the universal and collective unhappiness, regret, and guilt felt by humanity as a whole. We also don't realize that allowing for exceptions to the categorical prohibition to murder makes murder relative and allows for its continuation eternally into the future. The only way to end any murders is to end all murders.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:32 pm

From my point of view you can't evaluate human life. This is NOT just a simple mathematics that 5 is more than 1. For example these 5 people are bad guys. One of them is an alcoholic who beats his wife and kids, other one is thief, another is going to buy a gun and kill another person. Two left are "bad characters" as well. If you actually kill the first one, his wife would really appreciate that. She and her children would be finally free. Then we have this single person on the other side. He is a great man, who is a volunteer and helps dozens of poor, disabled and elderly people. How can we use just a simple mathematics in this case? I know in this situation we don't know these persons. It might be totally different. Maybe those 5 lads are good and the one is evil. Anyway we can't know this, so it's better to kill 5 good mates and spare one bad, than to kill one good and left 5 evil men alive;]

Kind Regards
Damian

P.S.
I really enjoy these lectures!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 4:39 pm

I forgot to add:
People shouldn't decide who can die and who can live.
Death penalty is unacceptable!
I would never make a decision who deserve to live or not.
reply

(TheGreatWhiteBuffalo) said:

Wednesday 7, October 2009, 6:31 pm

To Unregistered at 2:46 PM 10-7-09

Good points but in reality we can not stop even 1 murder there will always be evil people seeking to take the life of another. Like a ticking time bomb about to explode where and when if we do not know we can not stop the explosion and for that reason people will murder other people. The real question is about being in harms way... Who is likely to put themselves in harms way, not many people would intentionally take such a risk, how about innocent people living on an island near the ring of fire? Getting out of bed is a risk... We should stop people from creating situation where great risk and probable personal harm exists.

To Damian,

Can people chose to turn their lives around? Instead of killing those who you despise how about finding a way to better understand why they are in the mindset that they are in? Why not find a way to turn irrational people into rational people?

What is detention, jail or the purpose of incarceration?

If it is not right to kill then it is equally not right to torture, but is taking away the freedom of a convict torture? It is only torture when the benefit of incarceration is either too much or too little. In the case of too little benefit any incarceration is torture, and most likely we will find many inmates being abused while detained which is quite the opposite of giving a prisoner too much freedom, T.V., Radio, Conjugal visits, the ability to attain education (G.E.D.) equivalency or higher education benefits. Benefits that many free people can not afford, obtain, or complete.

We have rights and we have privileges we must decide what is a right and what is a privilege...

I have the privilege of writing here, I have no right to write other than this is an open public forum and I am thankful to be here.

If the final post was it also yours Damian at 4:39? I applaud the sentiment written and I agree that the death penalty is a cruel form of punishment and there are other ways in which we can deal with individuals who have caused harm to innocent people and/or the property of the innocent. The facts of any matter from both sides should always be revealed first.
reply

(jet) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 1:36 pm

"If it is not right to kill then it is equally not right to torture, but is taking away the freedom of a convict torture?"

Of course it is not right to kill or torture.
By the way FBI already proved tortures are useless, because victim will lie to ends it.
What can we do with criminal then?
Put him/her into jail to protect others, but we can't harm him/her physically or mentally.

Regards
Damian

(Alekzander) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 1:40 am

Greetings,

Answer to Part 1 - The Moral Side of Murder: There truly is no right definitive answer because in the end, someone is going to die. However, because we live in a society that attaches a value to human life, it is more "economical" to sacrifice the one in favor of the five in this case. I personally would prefer to have the death of one person on my conscience over five since the only real decision I have within my control, in this case, is how many people will die.

Answer to Part 2 - The Case For Cannibalism: It is morally wrong to commit murder regardless of the reason, however, in such desperate times where the moral standards are cast aside in favor of one's own survival in the face of impending death, it is unreasonable to hold a person morally accountable when only the laws of nature and survival remain. Morality, a human invention and general consensus of the masses, does not always apply and cannot be expected to remain universal.

Answering question 1: In general, it is not permissible to harm a small number of innocents to prevent greater harm to a larger number of people. I don't wonder if this rationale led to human sacrifices. Every action we perform is weighed on its own merit and all are governed by their own circumstance. There is no reasonable way to have one global moral code to fit all situations. So in general, it is not permissible, yet specific situations may warrant it.

Answering question 2 - The Bomb: It should not be legal for the police to use torture to gather information. If torture is made legal, a moral standard is set that will inevitably lead to the abuse of that method to gain information and torture of the innocent will become commonplace. You have to be very careful when setting moral standards that you do not lose sight of the greater good and you have to look beyond specific situations and ask if you want this standard set for all situations (even though it cannot be applied to all situations, we set these standards in the hope that most of the time, they operate as intended).

The great thing about life is that nothing is absolute.

Sincerely,
Alekzander
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 1:41 am

I believe that the main problem is that we are trying to justify an action where there is no justification. We will have to resort to murder to safe 5 people. Our main decision is not about killing one or five but whether to go against our own perceived morality (perceived as in, that active action that cause a death is less moral than passivity that leads to deaths). I would be consistent in both cases, because there is no rational reason to act differently in both cases. The perceived notion of a difference lies in my own sense of righteousness, which I am prepared to sacrifice to rescue 5 people.
If I had been on the track, I would have told the trolley driver to hit me, if I had been on the bridge I would have jumped instead. The problem however, disables that option of self-sacrifice.
reply

(mattincinci) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 4:18 am

NPR 11:00 Michael J. Sandel: "Justice" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux)

10/7/09

http://wamu.org/audio/dr/09/10/r2091007-27156.asx
reply

(MaggieAN) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 10:36 am

This on-line offering, (The Justice site, its contents, its intent), is perfect. It offers one of the many 'new ingredients' I believe required to help shift us (Americans and others) into a future guided more by mindfulness, and less by habitual patterned responses. I have listened to Part 1, and have posted comments separately. In this post I want to congratulate, and express heartfelt thanks, to Michael Sandel and others who have conceived, developed, and offered this opportunity. Thank You!!
reply

(rogernovotny) said:

Thursday 8, October 2009, 3:45 pm

Indeed, MaggieAN. It's a great concept, and very much needed in troubled times such as ours. What a way to bring new ideas and food for reflection to the general public. If they only availed themselves.

Everyone involved with this project deserves the most heartfelt congratulations.
reply

(jmccredie) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 1:00 pm

I'm diving in to several of the backup readings available on the site and was interested to learn that the defendants in the actual cannibal case were found guilty and sentenced to death. The Crown, however, commuted their sentence to six months in jail.

I'm trying to sort our in my mind clear distinctions among morals, ethics, laws, and justice - the title of this series. It's great to see a Chautauqua favorite featured nationally like this. The URLs for his 2009 and 2008 Chautauqua lectures are:

http://fora.tv/2009/07/20/Michael_Sandel_on_Markets_and_Morals

http://fora.tv/2008/07/17/The_Case_Against_Perfection_Michael_Sandel
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 11:24 pm

About the trolley car... you can not say you know for sure that you will kill the workers... maybe highly probable... not for certain... I believe the argument would be turned around if one asked who is more likely to hear an oncoming trolley and get out of the way... a group of 5 workers... or a single man... perhaps one could argue that a group would have the higher chance of survival... that at least one of those workers would hear the approach of the trolley car and warn the others... in that case going towards the 5 maybe more justifiable...

the second story with the fat man... is more sure... if you push him you will kill him... in this instance, there is little question about what will happen to the fat man... so you are committing a more sure deadly act... which is why we tend to view it with more disdain...

so our moral tension is over the more sure death of a single individual versus the less sure death of a greater number of people...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 11:35 pm

sorry I just noticed that I needed to register... comment from
g.edward.roberts

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 9, October 2009, 11:52 pm

I believe another issue is the assumption of individual risk... the first instance had workers who had assumed the risks of working on the trolley line, which could include death by trolley cars... they were compensated for this risk by the wages they were paid... they choose to take those risks for those wages.... the fat man on the bridge did not take on these individual risks... so there are arguments here about involvement...

(g.edward.roberts) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 10:03 am

I believe a better formulation of the question would be... suppose there were five kidnapped people tied to the left track and 1 kidnapped person tied to the right track... that would alleviate the risk argument and then it would become just a doing the least harm argument...

(TheGreatWhiteBuffalo) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 7:35 am

The issue is individual harm,

What causes the greatest damage?

Who has the right to kill?

I just lost some great thoughts on this subject due to a system glitch...

Maybe I'm not supposed to share publicly?
reply

(TheGreatWhiteBuffalo) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 7:40 am

In the case of the trolley car, the operator has to chose to create the least amount of harm.

In the case of the obese observer being pushed over the railing the harm to the individual does not outweigh the right of that individual to survive versus the five about to be killed. We should not sacrifice the innocent for the lives of those who have taken a great risk.

In the case of the doctor killing the healthy individual to save the five patients in their time of need, it would be wrong because the greatest harm is being caused to the healthy innocent person.

The answer is framed around the concept of harm.

Who should be harmed?

Is it right to kill?
reply

(keddaw) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 4:58 am

Having gone through many permutations on this issue I have come to a definite conclusion that I thought I'd share. The problem is not the killing of the observer per se. That is morally identical to switching the line and killing the 6th worker. The real issue here is the set-up. We feel morally uncomfortable pushing the fat man because in the real world we have no idea of the actual consequences. We do not know he will stop the trolley, we do not know the trolley will kill the 5, we do not know a whole host of things about the situation, so pushing the fat man is uncomfortable because we cannot have perfect knowledge. We can change track because we are in charge in that situation and have reasonable expectation of what is about to happen (even though there may be a failsafe further up the line we do not know of...) so we take the choice to avoid killing 5 by killing 1.

I think, if you would change track, you would come to the conclusion that it is better for society to have people willing to sacrifice one person to save 5. This is Darwinian: any group of animals that allowed harm to many for the sake of one (almost did a Star Trek quote...) will not be terribly successful compared to one which decides the good of the many outweigh the good of the one (dammit!). Thus we are pre-programmed to choose 5 over 1.

So the problem we have is not the killing 1 to save 5, it is the fact that the fat man being even further removed than simply changing the track massively increases our uncertainty over the range of possible outcomes. The idea that we can have perfect knowledge is one that we can intellectually understand but not 'in our gut'. I have wrestled with this for a while now and think this is the solution (that works for me). I can say with complete certainty (which I never have) that given complete knowledge of the situation (which I can never have) that I would push the fat man off the bridge to save the 5 and not feel the slightest doubt that I have done the wrong thing any more than I would by switching tracks.

(keddaw) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 5:06 am

From a utilitarian viewpoint (which I don't think I have) can you answer me this (again assuming perfect knowledge):
If you have a 20% of killing six people or you can switch tracks and have a 100% chance of killing one person, what would you do?

This situation reminds me of a hostage situation more than anything, but it is quite interesting. I would take the view that I would select the (statistically) greater harm of going towards the 6. Hence why I'm not a utilitarian. Why is a better question, but it resembles the reason why I wouldn't kill a healthy individual to harvest their organs to save 5 dying people. However, there is a soft limit that I could not pass, e.g. I would not risk 100 people with a 20% of death to avoid killing one person. How I get to the number that is my limit requires a longer post than a comment here.

(TheGreatWhiteBuffalo) said:

Saturday 10, October 2009, 7:45 am

Just to follow up on organ donation, we do not harvest organs from the healthy living individuals to save the lives of others or the concept of selling body parts becomes a model for a grotesque business that mutilates people for profit.

Consent for organ donation should be attained and the donation performed as the result of injury where there is no chance of recovery.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 12, October 2009, 4:18 am

I would just add at this time that Michael Sandel's course in philsophical Justice walks in the prodigy of Masonry, lacking in what I can only see at this time as a inability to teach or demonstrate Masonic dogma and rituals which richly espouse the ideologies and thought prevoking teachings generously given to its Initiates and Masters, that which otherwise adept Sandel eloquently disseminates to his students (or shall we say Initiates).
I have yet to devulge deeper into Professer Sandel's teachings (which I most certainly look forward to on this philanthropic online effort), and then perhaps I will proffer certain writngs or instructional matter on a later posting, or links thereto, which I see fit as beneficent offerings to the student of Mr. Sandel to further broaden there knowledge and wisdom, and in benevolence of mankind.
Undoubtedly I must thank the orginazations, and especially Havard University and Professor Sandel, for the online posting of these instructional course(s) and the inside look at the notorious and infamous Havard University. Thank You, your generiousity and efforts are greatly appreciated.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 13, October 2009, 4:55 pm

These students did a poor job of defending their position. Now I feel really terrible that I didn't get into Harvard. :-(
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 4:53 am

We find it morally acceptable to shoot a robber who intrudes our house in order to preserve our life, even though the thief may not cause any harm to us. Then shouldn't it be acceptable to murder and consume the boy?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 7:41 pm

I would think the important difference for me would be going from the role of attacker in the boat to be the person attacked in my own home. My right to self-defense does not extend beyond the imminent harm of the attacker.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, October 2009, 5:44 pm

What this discussion brought to mind for me is the idea of euthanasia for humans. If a person is suffering from terminal cancer, and they have been sent home by doctors on hospice... who typically refuse to give any further treatment because there is nothing they can do/try without a high risk of the patient dying SOONER... AND the person consents (actually, begs, pleads, etc is probably more accurate) to be killed rather than suffer the months it takes to die.... AND they can potentially donate the one or two healthy organs they might have....

is that morally ok?

I think not only YES but YES AND OVERDUE.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 6:49 pm

Why do Harvard students have so much trouble expressing their thoughts?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, October 2009, 7:23 pm

I would probably only kill another if attacked. Now assuming the attacker is now dead I doubt I would eat him since I would probably eat the wrong thing and die in some other more horrible way.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, October 2009, 6:18 pm

hmmm - the only thing I learned is that approx 50% of the audience/class is stupid. hopefully this is 101
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 9:37 am

In general, it IS permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people to prevent greater harm to a larger number of peopleBut no generalization is worth a damn, including this one, so each case must be measure on its own merits, and all the factors of each case considered, so no more can be said without more details.

If a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. The police might consider the use of torture to extract information from the suspected bomber, which WOULD meet the argument of usefulness, and greater good. However,, these are NOT the only considerations, and, for me, do not carry enough weight,since other, more effective, albeit, equally illegal, methods of obtaining information exist. I would propose the use of drugs to elicit answers. This is morally not on the the highest of grounds, but certainly n higher ground than torturing someone. It meets the usefulness test, does no harm, and helps the most people. It is particularly relevant in today's world, and I saddens me that if the government had to make a poor moral choice at Guantanamo, it chose torture rather than the more benign drugs.
reply

(trcooper) said:

Monday 16, November 2009, 2:10 pm

I would not say it is "permissible", but it certainly is the lesser of two evils. It's damned if you do and damned if you dont. And there is something to be said about becoming like your enemy in fighting him. But we need to recognize that we are not exchanging evil "FOR" evil, thus increasing the amount of evil. Did we put the beheading of these prisoners on the internet? And how do you know that drugs were not tried? It saddens me that we have to spend so much time chastising ourselves for acts that are reversible, death being irreversible.

(Steve1776) said:

Monday 19, October 2009, 11:26 am

Sandel evades any moral base of self-ownership but this doesn't intellectually defraud the students who advocate sacrifice. Sandel also evades Ayn Rand's morality of selfishness.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 4:28 am

i mean when the robber just intrudes our house secretly without causing any physical harm to us but we accidently find out, should we should him? if the answer is yes (in order to ensure our safety even though there is only a small chance of threat), if would also be acceptable to kill the boy and consume him right?

the robber and the boy both threaten our life in one way or another, and we both have a choice of kill or not kill.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 9:27 am

1. Bentham, Nozick and Kant are in a lifeboat with food only for two. Who should be eaten? What should they have for dessert?

2. Which is better, a Harvard "education" or a large pepperoni pizza?

3. What is Ayn Rand's refutation of lifeboat "ethics?"
reply

(Steve1776) said:

Tuesday 20, October 2009, 9:32 am

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 22, October 2009, 1:48 pm

1. If there is food enough for two, there's no need for anyone to be eaten. Throwing a philosopher out of the lifeboar is an option - that may result in someone's death, but it's not the same as eating each other. Desert? How 'bout eating their words?

2. Better for what? Eating?

3. Ayn might enjoy being "eaten" by one of these guys....

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, October 2009, 4:21 am

Why justify any actions in the first place?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 21, October 2009, 10:46 am

Classic..utilitarian versus deonology.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 26, October 2009, 4:19 am

It's not my place
To run the train
The whistle I can't blow
It's not my place
To say how far
The train's allowed to go

It's not my place
To shoot off steam
Nor even clang the bell
But let the train once
Jump the track....
Then see who catches hell.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 26, October 2009, 4:26 am

Puns are little "plays on words" that a certain breed of person loves
to spring on you and then look at you in a certain self-satisfied way
to indicate that he thinks that you must think that he is by far the
cleverest person on Earth now that Benjamin Franklin is dead, when in
fact what you are thinking is that if this person ever ends up in a
lifeboat, the other passengers will hurl him overboard by the end of
the first day even if they have plenty of food and water.

-Dave Barry, "Why Humor is Funny"
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 26, October 2009, 12:25 pm

People who have a habit of quoting others not only show a lack of imagination, but also display a longing desire to fit in that they know they could never fulfill by themselves.
reply

(badgirl) said:

Tuesday 27, October 2009, 6:17 am

In Undergrad I had an instructor whose most "inspiring" thing to say was, "No class today! Take the day off..." three or four times per week. Of course everyone would cheer and whistle... except me. When I explained to him I was paying my own way though college and I expected to come to class to learn and that I would prefer having more classes than going home early, he pointed me out to the class as a "kill joy" and continued dismissing classes. After I complained to the Dean, we were finally able to complete more class sessions. But, I can't begin to tell you how miserable that instructor made the rest of my year.

From then on, I was enemy number one on his list. He once whispered to me, "no matter what you do you will never get a passing grade this class." But near the very end of the year, I let him know I had kept every paper, every note of "constructive criticism", every test, every extra credit assignment, every re-submitted paper in which I always incorporated his notes and "suggestions" even when I had to resubmit the same paper 6, 7 and sometimes 8 times and even when his notes were exactly the opposite of his previous notes, all my meticulous notes and audio recordings of every single class. I walked though hot fire and brimstone to earn an A in that class and I was prepared to lay my body of work before the Dean to have him explain a failing grade. But, I got the A.

I would have given my eyeteeth to have an instructor like Professor Michael Sandel either in undergrad or in grad school. The privilege of being able to view his lectures and discussions on the net make me want to enroll in Harvard. Still, once I have things settled here at home in Las Vegas a bit more, I may consider enrolling in Harvard, if they will have me. I guess one is never too old to return to school.

By the way, I agree with the man who said it is wrong to kill the cabin boy and eat him even to save the lives of the other 3... Even if taking his life saves 30 or more people. It is simply morally wrong to kill anyone for any reason other than to protect ones self from that person if one’s life is threatened or (I believe) maybe as mercy assisted suicide to end someone's unbearable suffering. We all live or die together. If we don't protect the weakest of us then the strongest of us are in danger as well.
reply

(sunxran) said:

Wednesday 28, October 2009, 7:28 am

Well it may be the fact that the cabin boy must have been consulted and his wish should be taken into account but what would have been the scenario if the cabin boy had rejected to their proposal, most probably none of them would have survived, it was a hard decision to make but the right one. It is the same of sort of decision that the commanders have to make when one of their comrade is in line of enemy fire and surely gonna die and sending other comrades to save him will surely cause more causalities and revelation of their locations which may lead to further casualties, so in scenario like these decisions have to be made where you need to let go of morality to save more lives and from my point of view the right thing to do.
reply

(delanomuhammad) said:

Wednesday 28, October 2009, 10:51 am

In the case of the boy, it would not be permissible to harm him and remain within the realm of morality. Why would you choose the youth who has his whole life in front of him. It would be more fitting for an adult to exercise some autonomy and offer themselves as a willing sacrifice rather than disrespecting the humanity of the child. Unless the child was a child like Ishmael, some say Issac who agreed with his father Abraham's decision to follow the commands of God. But even God saw fit to respect the humanity of the youth, and stayed the hand of his servant.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 28, October 2009, 11:14 am

This is simply wonderful. My general observation is that morality doesn't really subject itself to reductionism very well, and in fact almost all moral decisions are grey. I'd like add the dimensions of interests and rights to the conversation, to properly model the moral conflicts. Finally, I also think that morality varies based on perspective - if I'm the spouse of the one worker on the track who is killed, I feel wronged by the one who steers the trolley car there, even if it is the correct thing to do. That's okay with me, I don't have to resolve everything neatly.
reply

(Maia) said:

Wednesday 28, October 2009, 11:16 am

As Martin Luther King Jr once said, " A man who is not willing to die for something has no business living". I know from a pass experience of a close encounter with death that I could not eat the cabin boy; that death would have been my preference to murder and cannibalism.

This is not a religious position. It just not my nature to kill or eat human flesh. I remember being very, very ill back in the '60s. I was delirious from a seemingly unbreakable fever. My mother sent for family members to come as I was in a bad way. One of them, an aunt, strongly believed in the power of cow dung tea, which she fixed for me immediately upon on arrival. When she offered it, I asked what it was. She replied, "Just drink it". Before passing out again, I remember refusing and thinking I'd rather die. Days later when the fever finally broke, my mother and I discussed the attempt of my aunt to get me to join her for tea.

I was young an not so afraid of death as I am now going on eighty. However, I am still not so afraid of death that I would do anything to survive. I still have some things that I will not do to stay here.

Oh, by-the-way, I am an atheist from birth. Although I was reared by Baptist and Methodist grandparents, I never could bring myself to believe in gods, ghost or talking snakes. I had too much integrity with myself to accept such nonsense. The process of making meaning, of arriving at a decision has always been important in my reasoning.

I could no more chew and swallow the Cabin boy, than a devout Muslim or orthodox Jew could chew and swallow pork. Let death come first, not last.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 11:52 am

"I am an atheist from birth"
Well, I wish I could go back and see you as an baby reason your way toward atheism. Non are born atheists. Atheism isn't the result of reasoning or science for that matter. You can see this in your line of thinking might I add.

(FamilyAdvocate) said:

Friday 30, October 2009, 5:40 pm

New Here - Just heard Sandel at Rutgers U ...

Could anyone here direct me to more details regarding the question: Would you bid on a baby?

Thank you.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 31, October 2009, 2:14 pm

The wide variance of opinion on what’s wrong and right here and the reasoning behind them highlights the difficulties of what is morally correct. These men were obviously not murderers in normal circumstances and did not try to lie (presumably) about the boys’ death. On the one hand the boy had his whole life ahead of him but on the other the survivors had family and children waiting for them at home. By the numbers it made more sense. But emotionally it is difficult for many people to stomach.

It seems to me that the actions taken by the survivors in this particular story did not killing for the sake of killing. As ugly as it may be there was a reason for it. We must always remind ourselves that we are looking at this from a point of view nothing like that of actually being there. I am in a comfortable place with no fear of starvation or violence contemplating whether those in a desperate situation acted properly. What is proper action in extreme circumstances? I would like to think that I would act in some ideal manner when faced with my own mortality, but I would probably be kidding myself. I believe any harsh judgments I make on the survivors would be a disproportionately emotional reaction at the expense of reason (as well as the survivors will to live).

In the end, based on the information available, I would have to reserve any harsh judgments and not convict the survivors of murder.

Rick
reply

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 5:38 am

I'm new to this series but find it fascinating. My first thoughts...
Kant makes the case that to live by duty according to a moral law we “give” ourselves, we in effect remove ourselves from the ordinary sensory world of simple cause and effect, and end up being guided by a “categorical imperative” that flows from pure reason and is therefor universal.
At the beginning of this series Sandel warned of the consequences of engaging in philosophy, about the “lost innocence” of knowledge and how once known, we cannot “un-know” something. My question... in a state of innocence, that is uninfluenced by culture, would a human child self generate this “categorical imperative” that Kant finds so valuable and sacred and beyond cause and effect? What is the likelihood of a child even self generating language much less the “higher” ideas of philosophy?
If you're with me on the unlikelihood to near impossibility of a human primate generating these philosophical notions, than doesn't it follow that education, and more specifically education in philosophy is part of the causal matrix that leads a human to “self choose” the duty of the categorical imperative, and therefore demonstrate how even this seemingly “higher” “universal” truth is the result of a complex cause and effect series and we aren't as free of the ordinary cause and effect world as Kant claims we can be?
reply

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 5:46 am

Re: Kant's notions of freedom.
“in that case every act would be governed by the desire for some object of the senses, and we could not be free”

Why is a desire for an idea, or an ideal different? Why are the thirst for justice or a hunger for truth distinct, particularly if we acquired them thru acculturation and training... one might even say indoctrination? We are still expressing, out picturing a culmination of a long lineage of causes and effects even if some of them are in the realm of ideas or “memes”... why does that make us more free than choosing to do X to acquire food or water or safety?

“the idea of freedom makes me a member of the intelligible world.”

Is Kant's notion of freedom based on choosing the idea of the free will, potentially an act of self deception to escape facing the complexities of being a species of primate totally embedded in a causal world attempting to make sense of it and our place in it?
reply

(djbeede) said:

Sunday 1, November 2009, 5:52 am

Re: Is and Ought...
Is and ought – what is discovered in the world of science can't decide moral questions, according to Kant. The realm of what “is” does not dictate what “ought” to be. The "is" realm of science is "at a distance" removed from the moral world of "ought."
Is this true?
If we are a species of social primates given to co-creating a shared culture and therefore given to generating preferences and visions and missions... ie. “To create a world of safety and sustainable fulfillment for ourselves and all of those who share the planet with us.” [just as an off the cuff mission statement.] Than within those group generated guidelines it becomes possible to see if the “is” that we observe and measure will lead to the “ought” that we have envisioned for ourselves. Yes? Concrete example might be scientists measuring the “is” of global warming and recommending the “ought” of things we might do to avoid catastrophe.
reply

(Nina Lee) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 7:32 am

Yes, doing science is a moral imperative. We cannot figure out what ought to be done w/out learning what 'is' or what can be done. The rest of this post is an excerpt from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#Ind :

The spontaneous inductions, such as “fire burns”, all admit of qualification. Humans soon discover their limitations, and undertake inquiry to try to fill these gaps in their knowledge. The making of inductions we cannot avoid: that is part of our being human in the world, it is what we must do. The judgments at which we arrive are all fallible, and the Cartesian, proposing the cognitive goal of infallibility, would therefore have us reject them all. Since we must continue the practice, it is unreasonable to propose a cognitive goal that requires us to stop. It is therefore reasonable to continue the search after matter-of-fact truth, fallible though it is: that is what we ought to do: must implies ought.

(This principle that must implies ought is the converse of the well-known Kantian principle that ought implies can. It is justified by the argument that where there is something we must be then it is unreasonable to propose that something else be required. This principle permits one to infer an ought from an is, to move from the realm of fact to the realm of justification. Mill appeals to this principle to establish that it is reasonable to make inductive inferences, even though they are all fallible: this is not the only place where Mill appeals to this principle.)

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 12:10 pm

It's very strange to me, this belief, that someone is less important because of a lack of family. So, by that reasoning, the next person to be killed on the lifeboat is the person who has the least number of kids?

What if two of them share a spouse and equal number of kids, what's the next step? Both of one crew member's parents are alive and one of them only has a mother that is alive. How many friends they have?

Many people seem to believe that part of the reason to have kids is to continue the bloodline, if that is true, shouldn't those who have already passed on their blood, by having children, be the first to be sacrificed?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 4:52 pm

Mother stiffles (to death) crying baby to protect rest of group from assasins
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 2, November 2009, 4:55 pm

5 people in need of transplant draw lots so one would die to save other four
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 4, November 2009, 1:56 pm

If I were the person standing on the bridge, I would not push the man.The situation would stand, in my mind, beyond my control.That is how the two options are different.If i had been the driver of the trolley, I would be forced to make a decision. Whereas being on the bridge would make me a by-stander.
reply

(LELANLELAN) said:

Friday 6, November 2009, 11:25 pm

LELAN: Life is a gift from Lord God Almighty who created our life and all things. Lord God Almighty has given us rules to live by, the Ten Commandments. Murder is an act that is written by Lord God Almighty to be a sin. Any decision by majority, raffle, lottery or by consent whether in war or peace time is still a sin. No government regardless of how configured can reverse the fact that the act of 'murder' is "the right thing to do." When Lord God Almighty writes that 'murder' is a sin, no man or group of men can change the consequences that Lord God Almighty preserves for murderers. A sin can be forgiven when it is not premeditated without forethought of asking for forgiveness by Lord God Almighty. The act of repenting in the true sense of the word, that a sin can be forgiven - but a sin that is calculated with the forethought of repenting -- the sin will probably not be forgiven -- Only Lord God Almighty and Jesus Christ make these decisions.

Suicide, by definition is murder of one's self. Therefore, by consent to be killed or the act of killing one's self is still, murder and is disrespectful to the gift of life from Lord God Almighty. The notion that anyone has greater value because he has family or siblings is somehow "more important" is absurd. As a boy is a son, and becomes married is separated from his "original family" and "becomes One with his Wife," creates a new family. The idea of "family" is only a "procedure" to envelop the Spirit and Soul that lives forever and is the "who" that we really are. Our Father lives in Heaven and lived infinitely before our creation and lives infinitely beyond our earthly lifespan. Your biological father lives on earth for a brief period, we call a lifetime about 72 to 112 years, and was merely a vessel to introduce your Spirit and Soul to life on earth. Because Lord God Loves us ALL equally, murder is a sin.
reply

(trcooper) said:

Monday 16, November 2009, 1:44 pm

Refer to Revelations 18-6 and think about it. Aslo read Leviitcus. Then tell me if you still categorically and absolutely say that ALL murder is a sin. There is a difference between returning evil "FOR" evil and returning evil "TO" evil. When compassion becomes taunted and used by evil, then compassion becomes an accomplice of evil. Would you still have Hitler alive today? I dont think Dietrich Bonhoeffer would agree with you that Hitler has rights.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 8:04 am

I liked this course too much. As a prospective peace activist, and currently the human rights advocate, I think the course is relevant to today's moral shrinking and decaying world. it also revives the attributes of Justice. Coming back to the discussion points, torturing suspected evil doers is politicaly justified but morally wrong of course. Haming innocent people to unharm a large majority is sometimes unavoidable for the sake of concerned people's interests. I am saying this notwithstanding the inherent and inalienable right every individual has to life. Hopefully, I will give more compelling views very soon (I am rushing now).

Nelson Juve Mugarura, Human Rights Advocate
www.mugaruranelly.8m.com juvenelson13@yahoo.fr
reply

(Billy) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 8:15 am

(trcooper) said:

Monday 16, November 2009, 1:24 pm

I can understand your wanting to maintain your moral virginity by maintaining a hands-off policy. In fighting evil, we do not want to become evil itself. Therefore, exercising compassion is one of the most moral things we can do. BUT, when evil taunts compassion and uses it, then compassion becomes an accomplice of evil. It is at this point that other means for combating evil must be used. There is a difference between returning evil "FOR" evil and returning evil "TO" evil. Assuming you are a Christian, I refer you to Rev 18-6.

(illuminatiscott) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 10:53 am

It is stated that the right to property exists only to the extent that an equal amount of property of the same quality is available to those others who wish to acquire it.

Bill Gates' wealth of ,000,000,000 is equal to 0,000 times 100,000; assuming that 0,000 is an admirable net worth in the eyes of most people, Gates has acquired the equivalent of 100,000 admirable net worths. It is clear that there is not enough capital in the world - not enough wealth - to allow everyone to amass nearly as much net worth as Gates has. It thus follows that Gates' acquisition is disproportionate and thus not within his natural right, because his disproportionate acquisition is exclusive of others' rights to the same; his "right" violates the rights of others and is thus indefensible.
reply

(illuminatiscott) said:

Saturday 7, November 2009, 3:48 pm

For some reason this deleted my 4s...that's extremely odd...It clearly should read "40,000,000,000" and "400,000".
reply

(jayde_drag0n) said:

Tuesday 10, November 2009, 3:08 am

I think that i may look at "distribution of wealth" differently than others.. the talk of "violating my rights" by taking my money though taxation, sounds all well and good until you think about by hoarding that wealth and not allowing for the re-distribution to those in needs.. violates THEIR rights by being the deciding factor on whether they live or die. In my scenario I will be person A I have 100million dollars, the government wants to take ,000 from me to help person B. Person B has pneumonia, completely treatable and not something you will die from with treatment.. except now I am in charge of whether person B will live or die.. If i give my 00 to the government B lives, if i hoard it crying "thief thief!!" B dies.. Do i have the right to determine whether someone else lives or dies?

This may sound cruel to point out.. but it is far from being dishonest.. for that example happens every day. If tomorrow taxes went away.. and the people who are disadvantaged only get help from charity.. that charity given is only going to help a few.. how many people do you think will die in one day from things that could have been prevented as compared to the previous day when people were being cared for (and remember what will go away with taxes eradicated.. welfare, food stamps, WIC, medi-cal, medicaid, fire stations etc..) no longer will the poor be fed, no longer will grandma get treated for her broken hip or heart attack, no longer will houses be protected from wildfires or house fires.. the world will be about one thing.. and one thing only "SELF" except that some day that "self" could be you
reply

(Steve) said:

Wednesday 11, November 2009, 3:33 pm

Yes and no. I believe it was definitely permissible to kill the cabin boy for the greater good and to limit overall suffering, and the doctor should also take this approach 'in theory' by killing the healthy patient. However, this may not be what he would do or be expected to do.
Why? the difference arises from the fact that the 'greater good' as judged from the perspective of the doctor is not the same as the greater good would be judged to be by a partial and impassionate observer. The doctors subconscious evaluation of what the greater good is would be skewed by the fact that he is likely to be deemed directly responsible for the killing of the one healthy patient. To an individual from
a species who have essentially evolved to value their own interests more greatly than another's, it would not be logical to become directly involved in the situation if more blame is likely to fall on them. This explains why when we put ourselves in the shoes of the doctor we cannot imagine ourselves killing the patient even though we know it would bring about less net suffering. I think this reasoning can also be applied to the crashing rail car predicament as well.
Steve Hill, London
reply

(MrJewett) said:

Saturday 14, November 2009, 1:32 am

What about putting the bomber in the city where the bomb is with a way to communicate if he chose to. Would that be considered torture?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 14, November 2009, 4:56 pm

I think that the only moral point of view, is to look at these people as the four men, not as Mr. X, or Mr. Y. In this way, it becomes clear that the only moral behavior could be a sacrifice himself. thanks
reply

(Kimig) said:

Saturday 14, November 2009, 10:32 pm

I have just finished Episode 3 and I am really enjoying these classes. What a beautiful facility there in Boston! I am in the heartland Missouri and hope to come there to visit MA. sometime. I don't believe taxation is theft. I have been in a few different tax brackets with different careers and I believe that is just and fair to have different tax levels per capita. It is our duty and right to be good stewards over the earth, the land and everything that God has endowed us with. We are free agents, self owned and self governed. And we have responsibilities with those rights, liberties and freedoms. http://members.tripod.com/kimig/WEBLINK
reply

(Kimig) said:

Sunday 15, November 2009, 7:03 pm

I have to say that I think that even with Parker's volunteering his consent or with the Parker's inclusion in the lottery that what they did was still wrong. It was even wrong for them to consider it. Thank you!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 15, November 2009, 10:41 pm

To devalue another person up to and including killing them for your own gain and out of your own fear is murder. Society has determined by their morals and values that murder is wrong. To take it to another level and include cannibalism is both morally and spiritually wrong. All 3 individual's should be tried in court with 2 of them for manslaughter and 1 for capital murder.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 16, November 2009, 1:23 am

Murder is defined as unlawful killing of another. There is a fallacy dealing with the term unlawful because if the law changes than the situation changes, it is not consistent. Moreover these scenarios are entirely dependent up the ideology that killing someone with malice intent is wrong. Why is it wrong?
reply

(trcooper) said:

Monday 16, November 2009, 12:51 pm

You are correct in your observation that the definition of "murder" changes when the law changes and therefore is inconsistent. Hitler would not be executed under today's laws where he would have been executed 60 years ago, the reason being that all murder is preceived to be immoral by today's standards. You are also correct that scenarios and reasons for murder vary widely. HOWEVER, murder with "malice" is presumed to be done so for puurely selfish reason and not for the greater good of society. There is a difference between returning evil "TO" evil and returning evil "FOR" evil. Evil "FOR" evil increases the amount of evil in the world. Evil "TO" evil suppresses evil. In fighting your enemy, be careful you do not become like him.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 16, November 2009, 10:01 pm

What if the cabin boy had (tried to) jumped over the edge of the dingy boat? He commits suicide with the knowledge he was to die any way, but left the others with nothing to eat or drink, depraving them of sustenance. They then stopped him and used him to survive by the act of murdering and cannibalizing him. Both sides would have attempted murder but only 1 side succeeds with murder. This was possible and plausible. Yet it would have been the cabin boys choice.
reply

(Alchian2009) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 5:39 pm

about Razmik Alchian Case #1832406
Just read Veronica Rocha untruth Dirty stories at Glendale news
My Brother Razmik is in the Prison for no reason!
He is not guilty but they are afraid to find Razmik not guilty.
of course, he lost his 2 jobs, a lot of money. he wasn’t able to see his new born Son
reply

(Alchian2009) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 5:45 pm

about Razmik Alchian Part 2
They make nervous problems for Razmik”s 1 year old girl,
make lot of problems for Razmiks wife and break the hart of Razmiks old parents
that’s why they afraid of telling the truth.
When I talk with a good lawyer, and explain this entire funny
reply

(Alchian2009) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 5:46 pm

about Razmik Alchian Part 3
He just told me that
Its mean (if you have money you can have your right, if you don’t have money go to the prison)
What kind of Justice is it? It is same what happened in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq
reply

(Alchian2009) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 5:50 pm

about Razmik Part4
Lawyer said
I can dismiss Razmiks case in about 2 weeks
What kind of Justice is it? It is same what happened in Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq
reply

(Alchian2009) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 5:52 pm

about Razmik
This is Law School, Who has answer for it?
its my last letter Thank you H Alchian
reply

(Alchian2009) said:

Tuesday 17, November 2009, 6:22 pm

about Razmik Alchian
before answer Just Remember
No Gun, No Money, No Drug, No List of Customer, No Life Style Change, No Security Systems, No Safety Systems, Clean History, No Complain,
No Witness. He has 2 full time Job (14 hrs a day), Clean Young Family,
he is American Citizen, He never leave California at Last 10 years, He has bachelor Degree. there is no evidences. They just take 38 photo of same Box and use as 38 exhibit!!!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, January 2010, 1:25 pm

about Razmik Alchian
Using innocent People as Bait is a Murder it’s not

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 21, January 2010, 1:27 pm

about Razmik Alchian
Using innocent People as Bait is a Murder it’s not The Moral Side of Murder

(trcooper) said:

Wednesday 18, November 2009, 2:54 am

I am glad to see this series and would hope there would be a future discussion of capital punishment.

Every human being has killed something to survive whether they recognize it or not.
So "Thou shalt not kill" is not correct. Murder is the killing of another human by a human.
"Thou shalt not murder" would be a more correct statement of moral law. But again this is too simplistic.
We must consider important factors surrounding a murder, one being "Was it accidental or on purpose?".
A purposeful or deliberate murder bears greater moral weight than an accidental murder.
So "Thou shalt not murder on purpose" would be even a more correct statement.
But yet another important factor to consider is that of the victim's consent.
Did the victim consent to his own death?
So "Thou shalt not murder on purpose without consent" is even a more correct statement.
And still yet another factor is motive for the purposeful murder.
Was it done for selfish gain (discounting self defense) or was it done on behalf of others?
So there are many question to be answered in determining the morality of murder.
For those who object to this line of reasoning on the basis of Biblical moral law,
I would refer you to Leviticus and Revelations 18-6.

In order to determine the morality of an act, we must establish some premises about what morality is, along with some other assumptions. These are:
1. "Morality" must be based upon "what's good for the goose is good for
the gander".
2. The dynamics of morality must be agreed upon by all of society.
Furthermore, it is unjust to change the dynamics of morality without
the consent of society.
Without hearing every individual's voice in the society, justice is
incomplete.
3. The "Right of Consent" is a human principle which must not be
violated. Consent may be given explicitly either in writing or
verbally. It may also be given implicitly.
"Implied Consent" is based upon the premise "Action speaks louder
than words".
reply

(trcooper) said:

Wednesday 18, November 2009, 3:18 am

(Continued)
4. To give one's consent either explicitly or implicitly through action and
then retract one's consent after an act has been irreversibly committed is
to attempt to single-handedly change the dynamics of morality.
It is unethical and therefore immoral.
5. Whether or not circumstances should be allowed to override the lack of
explicit or implicit consent is another matter which can change the
dynamics of morality.

With respect to the cabin boy scenario, I would agree that consent is an important factor. Furthermore, when one murders another without their consent
and for selfish reason, it would seem he has given a defacto or implied
consent. Obviously in the case of Hasan at Fort Hood, he had no intentions of
remaining alive, because he gave all his possessions away and did not act in
self defense. In other words, the participation in a murderous act upon another
without their consent is an agreement with the morality of the act and therefore a defacto agreement to allow the same act to be committted upon
one's self. The laws of cause and effect would be applicable.

With respect to "selfishness" it is possible that a group may act out of individual selfish reason.
But the key is whether or not the members are committing the act for themselves as individuals or out of
concern for the welfare of the others in the group.

In the final analysis of the case of the cabin boy not giving his consent, I would have to equate this act to that of robbery or gang rape where a homocide
was also committed. Since all of the participants stood to gain by murdering
the cabin boy, it must be be presumed they were all acting out of self interest. The question then becomes who do you hold responsible for what and
how do you parse out the punishment. Because those defendants
who participated in the actual murder gave their implied consent to the morality of the act by virtue of the act itself, they essentially agreed to
allow the same act to be committed upon themselves.
Therefore, they could be held accountable for a capital offense. But because there are three persons involved, it would seem to take three lives on behalf
of one life would go against utilitarian theory. Certainly,the taking of only
one life on behalf of the victim would seem justifiable. However, it might be argued that the group acted as one body and therefore the value of three is no more than one. This would seem to contradict utilitarian theory. It is at this
point that a larger body, ie, society, must be brought into play.
What produces the greatest good for the society at large?

My conclusion then is that capital punishment is moral and justiable when applied to cases of deliberate murder, excepting self defense, where the victim did not give his consent.
reply

(trcooper) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 6:47 pm

THE FAT MAN OFF THE BRIDGE SCENARIO.

This is an example of anticipation of an event.
One might called it ANTICIPATORY HOMICIDE.
Is it justifiable or not?
First, what you must do is walk up to the man and ask "Have you ever killed someone without their consent?". If he says yes, problem solved, ie, you shove him off the bridge. But if he says no, now you have a real problem.

This all may sound rather light hearted, but the fact is this is exactly what happens with policemen evry day. Should they use deadly force or not? If they kill a known murderer of non-consenting victim(s), then they are justified. But if they kill a would-be first time offender, then they've got a real problem.

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 18, November 2009, 2:39 pm

First let me say that I am sorry to be joining the discussion so late and that my comments address essentially part two of the question.

To the first part, yes it is permissible to an extent. This must be qualified, like all the problems of justice it revolves around who gets to decide what is right and what is good not necessarily what is right and what is good although those are important.

Exactly what constitutes a person and the relationship to other persons in any thought process must be determined prior to what is right and what is good. Extracting moral and ethical reasoning with out a prior understanding of what is essentially a changing rational being in reference to other like beings may step off the cliff of right, good, what is deemed necessary and what is deserved before it is known what group or individual we are speaking of.

So far who gets to decide appears an arbitrary choice.

Part two is essentially the ticking bomb scenario. Who gets to decide if a life or a few lives, innocent or otherwise, are forfeit in order to save many? The men on the boat took an innocent life but were punished for doing so. Yes the taking of that life was not condoned and the survivors paid for their act. The law recognizes certain circumstances or degrees where the taking of a life, while not strictly permissible is allowed under certain auspices subject to punishment.

The decision to take one life as in the control of a switch in a train yard lies with the switch controller and he really has only two choices save the many or change the train to another track to kill the innocent working in harms way, He does not have the choice of taking an innocent by stander of a certain weight. Liken this to the realm of the captain of a ship who must decide how many people can be fit into a lifeboat and how many must be placed among the flotsam and jetsam to survive. He does not have the choice of plucking another person from land uninvolved in the situation.

Returning to the ticking Bomb and torture, it appears to me that the only way torture can be involved is if it is known ABSOLUTELY that the person knows when, where and how the bomb will be used. Even then the torturer is subject to punishment. What guarantees the information received is accurate only, if the bomb is then secured, if not and false information leads to the death of innocents and not their salvation?

If there is any doubt, torture cannot be condoned.
reply

(trcooper) said:

Wednesday 18, November 2009, 4:54 pm

What is CONSENT? How does it impact ABSOLUTE MORAL THINKING?
One of the most highly recognized moral acts is for one to lay his life down on behalf of another. In other words, to commit suicide (which implies consent) on behalf of another is moral. So one cannot say without impunity that to commit suicide is ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL.

So what is consent? It is the agreement to allow a specific act to be done and more specifically (in terms of this discussion) the agreement to shed one's life.

How may consent be given? It msy be freely given explicitly in writing or verbally. Or it may be freely given implicitly through one's own actions. The operative word here is "freely". But the forceable extraction of consent is not allowed unless the subject from which the consent is being extracted has previously given his implied consent through similiar action he imposed upon another innocent person who did not give their consent.

What is the time limit of consent that has been given? Is it fair, just, ethical, or moral for one to give their implied consent to the morality of an act by virtue of their own actions and then turn around and say "Oh, but I've changed my mind"? Certainly we as humans are allowed to change our mind. But the question must be asked, what if our actions were gravely irreversible and denied another of ever again exercising their "Right Of Consent"? Is this not grossly unfair?

We must now ask, what actions constitute implied comsent. Who would disagree that any person who takes a perfectly healthy 1 year old child and chops it up into little pieces has given his implied consent to have the same done to him? There are probably some who would disagree, but my hunch is there are many more who would not disagree.

Ok. Let's take a more difficult scenario. A husband and wife are having a heated arguement. The husband pulls out a gun. The wife says "I dare you. You're not man enough". Did she give her consent or not?
reply

(trcooper) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 10:39 am

IMPLIED CONSENT to execute versus REVENGE.

Implied consent is not revenge. Misunderstanding of the difference between the two leads to feuds and wars. Revenge is committed without the other's explicit or implicit consent. An execution is committed with the implied consent of the other.

(trcooper) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 10:16 am

Further thoughts on husband and wife scenario.
A dare is a challenge and an implied agreement with the action being dared. To dare (or even pay) someone to kill someone else is an agreement with the morality of the act and therefore the giving of implied consent for one's self. If the wife says "I dare you. You're not man enough", she has given her consent. If she says "How dare you? you're not man enough", then she has not given her consent.

(trcooper) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 7:19 pm

INDIVIDUAL CONSENT vs SOCIETAL CONSENT.

I see that in addressing the issue of murder and its morality, I may have neglected the Rights Of Societal Consent. Societal Consent may be seen as the sum total of all individual consent. Morality must be defined including both types of consent. In most cases, it would seem that Societal Consent is the basis for law, and many times Societal Consent will override Individual Consent. Therefore, many times you will hear a judgement disallowing an individuals or group's actions based upon those actions as having "NO SOCIAL REDEEMING VALUE". Obviously, it must be recognized that religion will play a part in setting the society's standards. But the ever present dangers of potential demogoguery must be carefully watched. One may proclaim that God will punish a society for it's sins. However in the face of that, society must determine what is best for it's neighbors and children. Love and peace is to be the law for society, not ritual, not narcissim, not doing everything a self proclaimed prophet says.

(trcooper) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 1:34 am

DIVERSITY and the CLASH OF CULTURES
(In reference to Affirmative Action)

You know it's coming. I know it's coming. And in Bosnia it has already arrived.
At this very moment, different approaches are being tried to solve the cultural differences in Bosnia. Everything from breaking the country up into smaller countries along cultural lines to a single multicultural country with just one culture is in power. But none seems to be working.

Imagine in this country , if you will, having to listen to the shrill call to prayer of Muslims every day. How annoying can that be? But we do allow for religious freedom in this country, dont we? Recently, a suspect in a crime refused to be stripped searched, because she was Muslim. How do we know she wasn't carrying a bomb? These are valid concerns, yet we are called
racists and charged with discrimination and profiling in raising these objections to other cultural practices. The question is, what can we do about it without jeopardizing our own sense of morality?

I would not be so hasty as to herald in the glory of diversity.
On the other hand, I would not be so hasty to implement an unjust persecution.
What is needed is an enforcible set of laws based upon common understanding.
Obviuosly if we are going to yield to the inflow of diversity, then we need to demand that new cultures coming into the country abide by our existing laws and show common courtesy to one's neighbors. We need to demand that in order to become part of our society then they need to be willing to give up certain ways found to be offensive here. We need to demand that one common public language be learned and recognized, which is not to say we require
the new comers give up their native tongue at home. We also need to be willing to STOP PUBLICLY PRAISING ETHNICITY and accentuating differences with things like National Latino Month or National Black History Month. Let individual families celebrate their own ethnicity and ancestory. But please, don't make a national spectacle out of it as if making some narcissistic gesture.

Finally, ask yourself this. In our attempt to create uniformity in the world by insisting that every nation inact laws to encourage mono-culture, are we not destroying the very diversity that is held so high? Imagine if you will a world where there is one mono-culture without diversity. Does it not seem logical that to maintain true diversity, then each country should be encouraged to nurture it's own culture and insist that visitors abide by that culture's values?
reply

(trcooper) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 10:02 am

Recently, our Indian oommunity raised objections over the name of the football team, the Washington RedSkins. We laughed, because we tend to think of it as honoring the Indian. Yet do we see any team called the BrownSkins, or the YellowSkins, or even worse the BlackSkins. The Indians are correct, ie, WE NEED TO STOP ACCENTUATING DIFFERENCES EVEN THOUGH IT IT IS INTENDED TO HELP.

We call ourselves "Americans" to accentuate our commonality. Yet as a nation we are the United States. To give a political speech in this country as if we are representing all of the American countries and cultures can be viewed as arrogant and wrong. The point is, we need to be careful of who we call what and what we call who.

Yes, diversity in culture on one hand is a wonderful thing. But let's not destroy it by de-nationalizing it and growing a world-wide mono-culture. Let's seek the common grounds and stop pointing out the differences. Let's solve common problems in a culturally diverse world and protect endangered cultures. But let's not require that everyone should be exactly the same by waving our ancestory day-in and day-out in everybody else's face.

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 1:44 pm

And all this leads us to the moral question: Is Bush's Government guilty for executing Saddam Hussein for utilitarian reasons? (supposedly would make the lives of Iraquis better). Is American justice, just introducing death as a penalty? Isn't it still a murder even if a trial has preceded execution? I would like an answer to that!
reply

(trcooper) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 2:51 pm

TOUGH QUESTION, ie, imposing our morality on another culture in their country. Certainly in Desert Storm there was justification for going after Saddam, because he invaded Kuwait. But presumably that issue was settled by the time of GWB. So just what was our justification for the 2nd war with Iraq? A SUSPICION! Did anybody give us a warrant to enter their house the 2nd time? Not really. So I understand your concern.

However, it was ultimately the Iraquis themselves who tried and executed (or murdered as you say)Saddam. And it was Saddam himself who approved it through his own prior actions and thereby gave his implied consent to the morality of murder without explicit consent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Whether or not we belonged in Iraq at all the 2nd time is a valid question. But I would not go on a witch hunt for GWB, because he had almost all the nation behind him at the time. We can try to clean our own hands by saying "He mis-informed us", but the fact is almost all of the media was saying what a bad dude Saddam was, including FrontLine. So let's not kid ourselves. We have this tendency to look at other countries and judge them through our own sense of moraity and then hop into it with both feet. Our only justification for imposing our views on another country is if they, or someone they harbor, attacks us, as did Alqueda. By the same token, no culture has the right to come into our country and impose their values upon us. As much as we would like a mono-culture, it cannot be achieve through force. It must evolve as in nature. The radical Muslims do not acknowledge this , and that is their problem. Let's not allow them to succeed, and at the same time let's not make it our problem too.

(trcooper) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 2:03 pm

I wish to thank you for the opportunity to develop my ideas pertaining to moral and ethical thought and allow my discussion of those ideas. I have btter organized the presentation of those ideas on my own web site at

http://www.trcooper.com/Misc/Justice/Justice.html

In that way, it will not be necessary for me to "hog" your resources.
reply

(Kimig) said:

Thursday 19, November 2009, 11:45 pm

Morality is strictly defined by the Torah, and the rest of the old testament including all the old prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon and all of the New Testament too. We have to have the mind of Christ by being born again to know how to apply the biblical principals in every part of our lives. For instance the old testament had the opinion that you stone to death the adulterer but Jesus said "who ever has not sinned let him be the first to cast the stone" and He said when someone slaps you on your right cheek you give them the left cheek as well. Bless those who curse you, do good to those who do evil to you. Feed your enemies and on the cross HE said "Father forgive them for they know not what they are doing." To be able to be like the Son Of God was on the cross is only attainable through HIS spirit. Murder is murder even if the law changes! And again I said morality and the judgment of right and wrong are clearly stated in the word of God. I respect the theory of all of these great philosophers. John Locke was already one of my favorite men in history before I started taking these classes. But even Mr. Locke as close as his counsel was to being nearly perfectly in line with the spirit of the Word of God still John Locke's counsel must be weighed by the scales of the bible and sifted through the measure of his statutes. God is right, we are wrong any questions?!
reply

(trcooper) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 10:04 am

Leviticus and Rev 18-6. Read the whole book, not just Mathew

(Kimig) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 12:30 pm

Yes it does say repay her for her deeds speaking of Babylon but no where does it say to murder her. And it is not referring to man repaying her it is referring to GOD repaying her. If you continue on to the following verses you will see that God repays her with death by plague. Rev. 18:6 "Render to her just as she rendered to you, and repay her double according to her works; in the cup which she has mixed, mix double for her. 7 In the measure that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give her torment and sorrow; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.’ 8 Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her."
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 20, November 2009, 2:35 pm

I beg to differ with you, but it reads "Come away from her, MY PEOPLE; Do not take part in her sins or you will be punished with her. For her sins are as high as Heaven,and God is ready to judge her for her crimes. DO TO HER AS SHE AS DONE TO YOU, AND MORE. GIVE DOUBLE PENALTY FOR ALL HER EVIL DEEDS. She brewed many a cup of woe for others - give twice as much to her.

I would say that this is VERY CLEARLY a commandment to THE PEOPLE to act. It is a call to action, not to exchange evil FOR evil, but to return evil TO evil. Compassion is our general calling. But when compassion allows itself to be taunted and used by evil, then it becomes complicit with evil. I would suggest that for every day Maj Hasan is allowed to live, then ALL ABSOLUTE MORALISTS BETTER PRAY FOR THE VICTIMS OF FORT HOOD AND THEIR FAMILIES EVERY DAY, and not one prayer for Hasan. Of course his death wont bring back the victims. But as long as he is alive, there will be salt in the wounmds of the victim's families and justice will never prevail in their lifetime. But then the ABSOLUTE MORALIST wont have that on their conscience, will they, because it's out of sight out of mind?
reply

(del999) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 4:37 am

It's not fair to justify murder in any way. It's good to see the difference between civilized society and primitive man. The damnation of this crime is the achievement that human kind had made and shouldn't be relativized. Why should any have grounds to take back the right that only God have? The fact of the case that the boy was an orphan and have no family throws us in moral dillema that we shouldn't even have! We loose our objectivity. Just think what would your family think in case you were eaten in place of someone else? Would they justify this fact? It was wrong, it was a crime! What is in opposite for doing something wrong? It is to do something good! We do something good or we do something bad. There is nothing between!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 3:38 pm

The dilema is solved. If the boy did not give his CONSENT, then the other three are guilty of immoral murder. In committing the act, they have agreed to the morality of the act, and therefore have given their IMPLIED CONSENT to have the same done to them, thereby making it moral for society to take their lives without their explicit consent.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 12:48 pm

Suicide is the CONSENT to murder. Jesus DIED FOR YOU giving his consent to his own murder. So are you saying Jesus was immoral?

Jesus said " Forgive them, they know not what they do". Does that say anything about those who knew darned and well what they were doing?

The GOOD BOOK tells us that Jesus said "Resist Not Evil". But he also said "Get behing me Satan". And so I say "Get behind me Satan".
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 2:08 pm

Oh I know, there is something still stuck in your throat, ie, "It was God's will, not Jesus's will, that he should die". By virtue of his agreement with God, Jesus gave his IMPLIED CONSENT. Does that mean it was an immoral murder?
The answer must be two-fold. No, not from Jesus's and God's standpoint, because it was done on our behalf to convey a greater message. And no, not from the standpoint of those who did not know what they were doing. But YES, it was immoral for those who did so for themselves and NOT ON BEHALF OF OTHERS, because they knew what they were doing to be wrong.

There is a PROBLEM with ABSOLUTE AUTHORITARIAN RELIGION. It has led to wars and unjust murders. The rightness or wrongness of murder is RELATIVE, not absolute. If you see murder as beiong absolutely wrong, then you may as well lay your family absolutely bear to be slaughtered by the radical Islamists who would kill them for being infidels. Remember, they believe in God too, ONLY ABSOLUTELY. And I would warn you that you better have a very strong stomach to witness the murder of your family knowing you stripped them of their defenses.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 2:32 pm

And here is one more thought. Would you condemn Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a world-wide recognized German theologian, for his attempts to assasinate Hitler during WWII?. Are you sure that you've studied as much as he did?

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 2:58 pm

There is something disingenuous in dismissing an immoral act by saying "It must be God's will". Somehow, it tends to relieve one's self of all responsibility

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 2:55 pm

There is something ingenuous in dismissing an immoral act by saying "It must be God's will". Somehow, it tends to relieve one's self of all responsibility.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 21, November 2009, 3:01 pm

Correction "disingenuous".

(jo) said:

Sunday 22, November 2009, 9:24 pm

2009 11 21
Kant's supreme categorical imperative = supreme basis of morality

Kant would welcome this clarification:

In the beginning is the BIG BANG = GOD.1
Prior to the beginning is the infinite space in which occurred the BIG BANG. said space = GOD.0
The explosion continues according to the unchallenged (unchallengeable) 2nd Law of Thermodynamics = GOD.2
Said explosion is characterized as an increase in entropy corresponding to a decrease in order.
For every event, there is the result of increased entropy, increased disorder, increased heat, at the expense of more ordered energy/and/or mass.

The BIG BANG arose in the highest order, a Universe contained within a dimensionless point.
Since that moment, dust forms on my bedstand. My father died.

Life is a temporary anomaly within said explosion, a transient eddy within the flow.

No process on earth, including any of life, violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing does.
Shit happens.
Katrina.
Fort Hood.
Virginia Tech.
--all a consequence, all derived from
The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics = Evil.
For life to continue, it must be, if only temporarily, protected from
The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Live must be protected from Evil.

Morality
is the duty
at all times
to protect all Life from Evil.

Each individual, sharing in Life, can offer that duty, autonomously.

Most submit to Evil, in the form of lassitude.
go with the flow...
reply

(jo) said:

Sunday 22, November 2009, 9:28 pm

From the explosion arises Life, GOD.3
From Life arises Love, GOD.4
i live to love.
i love to live.
that’s it.
reply

(jo) said:

Sunday 22, November 2009, 10:08 pm

Notice our etymological forebearers have properly coded the opposites:
EVIL - LIVE
reply

(SBorges) said:

Tuesday 24, November 2009, 11:55 pm

The belief that killing one person to benefit the larger community is what leads to genocide and destruction. I do not believe in murder for any reason; it is categorically wrong. As soon as we (as society) head down that path of thinking/logic there can be no moral end.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 28, November 2009, 11:24 am

The word "WRONG" as used in this context must mean "MORALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE". "MURDER" by definition must include "SUICIDE", where "SUICIDE" includes "CONSENT". Therefore, suicide must be moraly unjustifiable according to this "logic".

It is my guess that such "reasoning" stems from the Christian faith, although there may be other faiths that dictate the same. The Christian recognizes that Christ gave his life (ie, "CONSENTED" to his own death) for us to convey a greater message. Are we to say that Christ's consent (via God) to his own death was "MORALLY UNJUSTIFIED"?

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 28, November 2009, 3:18 pm

The obvious standard rebuttal to this question is "Christ did not commit suicide, because it was God's will". And Christ (according to scripture written 60 years after the fact) did say it was up to God. But one might view this to be the same as four men drawing lots. They have all consented to being murdered depending upon who draws the shortest lot and on the basis that God will choose, which means their murder is morally justified in the same manner as that of Christ's. Afterall, it's God's will is it not?

The point is that one cannot argue consistently (and therefore logically) that ALL murder is absolutely wrong. There are some OBVIOUS EXCEPTIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SELF DEFENSE and THE PROTECTION OF SOCIETY. "Morality" is a temporal thing (ie, the here and now), and therefore must be based upon fairness, ie, what's good for the goose is good for the gander". But it is the timing of "JUSTICE" over which there is so much dissention. Do we wait until after our death for God's justice to prevail, or do we seek justice in the here and now for the immoral acts committed on us in the here and now. Is it really moral (ie, is it really fair) to allow an entire family to pass away before the person who murdered one of their own innocent children dies? Case in point, Charles Manson. Are you really willing to watch your own children be slaughtered as you stand idly by saying "It must be God's will". Somehow, it seems like a convenient cop out to irresponsibility.
What is wrong is when murder is commited upon someone who has not given their consent.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 1, December 2009, 3:16 am

what will the remaining men do when they become hungry again?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 1, December 2009, 4:39 pm

Consent to their own individual destiny leaving the others out of it, unless one of the others consents to being dinner.

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 1, December 2009, 5:16 pm

Additionally, if none of them consent to being dinner, but one of them takes the life of another regardless, then the murderer has given his IRREVERIBLE IMPLIED CONSENT to be dinner for the remaining. Captain Bleigh (from Mutiny on the Bounty) kept his men alive in a long boat by imposing moral standard with punishment on the men. We may not like Captain Bleigh, but they miraculously survived a long voyage for months without eating each other.

(Blue Sun) said:

Wednesday 2, December 2009, 11:22 pm

This all distills to a very simple premise - When, if ever, does the end justify the means?

My feeling is that the end is affected, or defined, by the means, and that it is never justified. This is true no matter how admirable the end is. Do you torture one to save 3,000 (assuming that you know in advance what the fatality rate will be)?

One way to test this is to imagine that you have caught a bomber who has just killed a number of your country's civilians and military personnel. You have reason to believe that he might know of future bombing plans that will occur in the next 24 to 48 hours. Are you justified, in the name of protecting your civilians and soldiers in torturing that person for information about future bomb plots?

If you say yes, then you have just created a justification for the North Vietnamese to torture John McCain and other captured bomber pilots, who might have knowledge about the next mission.

In order to say that you have a right to torture even a known bomber to save innocents, you must set yourself up as somehow on a higher moral plane than the North Vietnamese - or any other group of people who might find it 'necessary' to extract intelligence from American soldiers.

Secondly, the act of torture is always immoral for the person performing the torture. It is not just a moral question about the harm caused to the suspected terrorist, but the moral harm caused to the person who participates in the torture.

Friedrich Nietzsche said: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."

You have to consider the moral effects of the act of torture on the person administering the torture as well. When you stoop to torturing your 'evil' enemy, no matter how many innocent lives might be at stake, you erase any moral distinction between yourself and your enemy.
reply

(McDuff) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 2:01 am

The ticking time bomb premise is one of those examples which exposes little more than the limitations of the hypothetical in moral thought.

In conversations with US Army interrogators with active duty in Iraq and Afghanistan under their belts, the overwhelming consensus is that torture is unreliable and a net negative.

In interviews with US senators and members of the executive branch, many of whom have never seen a dead body let alone any active military duty, the overwhelming consensus is the exact opposite.

What would lead lilywhite pantywaists to such a conclusion, when the "boots on the ground" declare the opposite to be true?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 2:56 am

There is a point that in fighting your enemy, then you can become like your enemy. But our moral virginity is protected when we realize that we are returning evil "TO" evil, and not evil "FOR" evil and on behalf of others. Did our dispicable acts of torture compare in any way with the broadcasted beheading by our opposition? Morality is relative, not absolute.
reply

(McDuff) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 9:28 am

We can all take solace in the fact that we're Not As Bad As Someone Else, can't we?

I like the idea of "moral virginity", because it's just as ludicrous as the real thing. It tickles me to think that we would defend our virtue by claiming that the other slut had climbed right into bed with the devil, wheras we'd just given him a sloppy blowjob in the parking lot. Surely that exonerates us and makes us pure, right?

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 1:09 pm

Would you not agree that the highest moral good you could do in this world is to lay your life and worldly possessions down for the good of someone else? One question is if you do any less than this, then are you not immoral ACCORDING TO ABSOLUTISM? The radical Islamics certainly think so. IT'S RELATIVE, like it or not. And the other question is, WHO are you going to lay your life and possessions down for? Sorry, but the devil (being unintelligent stupidty) does not exist, only evil people.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 3:30 pm

You cannot continue to combat absolutism with absolutism. There will be no winners and there will never be any peace.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 9:23 pm

Many religious believers would argue that murder is CATEGORICALLY and ABSOLUTELY wrong, meaning it is absolutely immoral.
They would say that it is solely up to God to take a human life and that society has no right to play God. They would argue that all humans have an unconditional right to life. So let's examine the validity of that argument. To say that it is up to God to take a human life is to say that God interacts on a daily basis with conditions here on earth, since people obviously die from natural causes everyday. But the resolution of differences between scientific fact and Biblical teaching has resulted in the conclusion that random events, which are independent of God's will or man's will, are more prevalent than God's
interaction with the world. That being the case, God does not have a corner on the market when it comes to human death. On this basis, we contend that it is not up to God, and never has been up to God, to be the sole taker human life. To tell the parent of a deceased child that it was God's will is one of the most cruel things you can do, and at the same time it does not speak well of God. Presumably God has made us in His image and with a free will, ie, He has given us the ability to make moral decisions. Therefore, it is not necessarily playing God to take another person's life, which is not to say that it is moral.
In addition, to say that we all have an unconditional right to life regardless or our disrespect for the rights of our fellow humans to live is IRRESPONSIBLE, UNETHICAL, AND IMMORAL. There can be no such thing as unconditional morality. Morality is relative and conditional, not absolute and unconditional.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 2:29 pm

As far as the "pushing a fat man off the bridge" and "killing the one healthy patient to save four others" categorical philosophy need not enter into the decision not to do these actions. Without resorting to believing that certain actions are so morally wrong they should never be done under any circumstances you can reasonably argue that there is a big difference between the type of actions involved on both sides of the problem. On one side you can do nothing and let nature take its course. The fact that some people will die, and that this is tragic, does not make you responsible for their deaths. Alternatively you can choose to act in a way that DOES make you directly responsible for another's death. AS such, you are making the choice to let some people die because you do not want to become a murderer.

I believe that in the case of the trolley driver he does bear some responsibility for the death of the four that the trolley will crash into. He will also bear some responsibility for the death of the one it will crash into, and perhaps slightly more responsibility, as it is his choice to make the turn as opposed to not making the turn. However, I feel that the difference in the degree of responsibility is much less then that in the other examples.
reply

(machapungo) said:

Monday 7, December 2009, 12:10 am

Regarding the cannibalism case. The social situation in the dinghy is one of survival. The social customs and morals apart from the boat exist only up to the point of facing reality. At this point a person should focus more on the nature of his companions than morals. Unless someone volunteers to die or all draw straws to decide who dies then there are only three choices. 1. Kill another and eat. 2. Refuse to kill and potentially be killed. 3. Join a mutual decision to wait for the first to die and then eat well until the next dies and so on until all die. The third decision requires all to keep one eye open during sleep to avoid the problem of others changing their minds. In the case stated help arrived soon. However, the sea is huge and the probability of any to survive was very low especially at that point in history. If rescue happens then the survivors if they are smart will concoct the most plausible set of lies to avoid prosecution by high minded moralists that were not in their shoes.
reply

(rc) said:

Monday 7, December 2009, 7:18 pm

Harvard's early motto was Veritas Christo et Ecclesiae, "Truth for Christ and the Church." With that in mind, the Parable of the Lost Sheep told by Jesus in the New Testament, Matthew 18:12-14 and Luke 15:3-7, is instructive in situations involving self-interest and the interests of others, especially groups of others. The lesson of the parable links-us-back to the virtues that what we already know, but need to be reminded. Simply apply the lesson to these hypotheticals and the answers emerge as obvious.
reply

(someNOOB) said:

Thursday 10, December 2009, 11:05 am

The murder of the cabin boy I believe was justified because it had a serious potential to save the lives of the cannibals. Murder is wrong because we desire not to die. To murder the dying man who had nothing to little to gain by living, did not change his situation. He was either going to die to starvation and his illness, or he was going to be murdered and save lives. In both cases his desire is broken, but in the latter case the desire of the other men to live is fulfilled.

I think that the important change that consent brings about is a change in the desires of those consenting. If I consent to letting you kill me it may be for any number of reasons, but assuming it does not come about through duress, then you are not breaking my desires, because they are overrided by other, stronger and/ or more numerous desires.

And the idea of fair process is linked to the idea of consent, collectively they agree to what is better for the group, and for each of them individually. Deciding that situation in which there is a 1/4 chance to die instead of a 4/4 chance is much better for them.

So i think it's right because the desires of all 4 must be taken into account, and the dying man's situation in relation to his desires was not much changed. That consent removes or replaces the desire to live with other desires which take precedence. And that fair process, is acquiescing to consent to the process.
reply

(JOHN LAW) said:

Saturday 12, December 2009, 2:29 pm

From: bvgpublishing@aim.com
To: FellowsProgram@supremecourt.gov; publicaffairs.law@yale.edu; clinical@law.harvard.edu; communications@law.stanford.edu; deans.office@law.stanford.edu; jwelch@mail.michbar.org; elyon@mail.michbar.org; jhershkowitz@mail.michbar.org; AskDOJ@usdoj.gov; Kenneth.Cockrel@detroitmi.gov; ConyersM@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; WatsonJ@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; S-Cockrel_mb@ckrl.ci.detroit.mi.us; Collins_MB@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; A_Talabi_mb@atwpo.ci.detroit.mi.us; m-reeves_MB@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; bjones_mb@cncl.ci.detroit.mi.us; MikeCox@michigan.gov; gov_office@michigan.gov; senator@stabenow.senate.gov; mulhernd@michigan.gov; COXR860@detroitmi.gov; GUYT760@detroitmi.gov; HAMPTONR403@detroitmi.gov; JACKSONR457@detroitmi.gov; JARVISD135@detroitmi.gov; president@messages.whitehouse.gov; Chiefofpolice@dpdhq.ci.detroit.mi.us; info@messages.whitehouse.gov; washington.field@ic.fbi.gov; WeissJe@michigan.gov; aerby@detnews.com; mathompson@detnews.com; wmiddlebrook@detnews.com; jon.wolman@detnews.com; me@glennbeck.com; stu@glennbeck.com; cbrady@glennbeck.com
Sent: Mon, Jul 27, 2009 3:12 pm
Subject: Re: You have to see this Case, this is a real Case!

2:09-cv-12592 - VAR - MJH
GRAY v MIOAG FILED 7-1-2009
09-12592

http://www.naag.org/naag_executive_committee.php (Someone contact these people please)

http://www.bwlap.org/TAPs/judgecomplaint.pdf

After the filinig of this case it were dismissed. The case is a person was attacked and seriously injured, the person's children were killed (one unborn. cut out of the mother and stuffed inside of the Plaintiff)The Plaintiff tried to file/report the crime to appropriate Authority(s) in the State of Michigan and recieved no reponse other than "...out of the jurisdiction of..." {and is attached to the Complaint filed in U.S. District Court, E. Mich Div.}, not even from the F.B.I. or Inspector General after such response(s) from the State of Michigan. The Judge dismissed the case. "..no arguable basis in Law...A.G. is not responsible for private legal matters...etc." The Plaintiff then files against the Judge and the case is picked up by another District Court Judge instead of the Court of Appeals. The Judge dismisses the case and the Judge the case is agianst has the case exspungded.PLEASE, PASS THIS CASE AROUND TO ALL U.S. CITIZENS AND RESPECTED LEGAL BEGALS, to show them what corruption really means. other related cases:
2:09 - cv - 12596 - DML - MKM Gray v Michigan Department Of Human Services
2:09 - cv - 12622 Gray v City of Detroit
Blaine V. Gray, II, Case: 09-cv- 2179
Plaintiff Originating Case: 09-cv-13404
v. Case Manager: Sue Burlage
Michigan Department of Civil Rights,
Defendant

www.7161.com/artist.cfm?user=16515 THE TRUTH BE TOLD
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 12, December 2009, 5:31 pm

Is life always preferable to death? Is it possible that death would be preferable to living a dishonorable life? The decision to kill the cabin boy is not significantly different than a doctor sacrificing a healthy patient to save the lives of three sick ones. In both cases, life is measured with statistical outcomes, and assuming that in all cases the preservation of the most lives is the goal -- regardless of the morality of the decisions you made to get that outcome. The ends do not justify the means. Our character is measured on process more than outcome. Kathy
reply

(Dubiaku) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 7:23 pm

"The ends do not justify the means." Easy to say, buy why not? The answer to that question is one of the main purposes of this entire course. Stating it only brings us all back to square one. Categorical statements like that something is always wrong, are very easy to make, but far more difficult to justify. If you defer to some "higher authority", such as a religious leader, you have only passed on the responsibility for making these determinations to someone else, but you have not contributed to the solution.
reply

(lordbyron) said:

Monday 14, December 2009, 12:22 am

In answer to both questions, a resounding YES. Utilitarianism is the basis for any functioning democracy. Democratic societies base their decisions on doing the greatest good for the greatest number. At least, in theory, that is how it should be done. But in the end, arguing over what's right and what's wrong, seems rather futile. Right and wrong are fictions developed by the human mind to help extricate our selves from the jungle, which was described by Hobbes as being "shorty, nasty, brutish and short." Democratic government is the fruition of this dichotomy and we've been floundering in it ever since.
reply

(JOHN LAW) said:

Monday 14, December 2009, 2:01 pm

Are you “gene”ius’ awake? The real issue is not with evolution of the Venus Fly Trap, the real issue starts with the realization that one person will not ever be the ruler of the universe. Law makes it possible to take a breath and not have to wonder if the person next to you can have an all encompassing opinion about how you should breathe while they are around.
Take Arabia, for example. They are just old enough to have made it to the present without extinction, though they, in comparison to the rest of the “Civilized World” have not made it out of the dark ages when it comes to Democracy. How is it possible for the money in Arabia to be worth more than the dollar and them not having the means to defend themselves against terrorism? A ploy, a game of chess? Seems to be, considering the U.S.A. has gone into debt trying to help them bring Democracy to an area of the world that seems to like it the way it were Centuries ago.
There is no Democracy without Democracy, no matter how convenient it maybe to others. The proof is in the pudding baby. The language alone proves there is a difference in the belief system (pronunciation). Dichotomy, yes. Valid reason for “War”, maybe. Law, never has and never will be.
reply

(M.Banani) said:

Friday 25, December 2009, 7:29 pm

There was a point that i hoped one of the students would make. In the first story, there is a huge difference between the viewer and the driver. While the viewer isn't really forced to act, the driver has a choice that he has to make. This changes a lot of things, while killing one person to save 5 may be considered as a good thing by many people, the act of murder itself isn't, therefore, the viewer and the doctor who had the choice to steal the organs had one very important alternative, not to do anything, and in those cases, as if they killed this one person, they would have probably felt a lot of guilt and would have been blamed for killing an innocent person, although they DID save 5 others.
reply

(turtlez) said:

Saturday 26, December 2009, 11:08 pm

Although these discussions are unavoidable, how can reflecting on issues that seemingly have no answer be of any good? We don't know what we do is truly morally just or not, when there are so many conflicting opinions. So how should we approach moral philosophy? Do we continue to live, making the best decisions we can make using the reflective qualities that we have learned from this course? And if not, what more can we do? How do we live with multiple options? To what extent do we need to know the right and the wrong and do the right and the wrong, and therefore to what extent should we pursue right and wrong and truth given the confusion that it brings? I don't know how to live with no answers, all these varying viewpoints, I can't come up with my own, since there are so many different perspectives in each situation. Please advise.
reply

(Carol) said:

Monday 25, January 2010, 8:02 am

Turtlez, since no one seems to have responded to this question as yet, I will make an attempt. It is not that these issues have "no answer"; it's that the answers are not as easy as they might at first seem. Whether thinking about such issues and the multiple options for response that they present is useful or valuable depends on how important morality and ethics are to your life: every day, there are millions of people making millions of unethical or amoral decisions, and causing harm to others without a moment's remorse, simply to satisfy their own needs or to appease their own anger or discontent. (The students at Columbine, the Unibomber, the terrorists of 911 and the London bus bombing, the student at Virginia Tech, and the psychiatrist-turned-assassin at Ft. Hood spring immediately to mind; I'm sure you can think of others.) Philosophy and justice attempt to solve moral dilemmas like the ones being presented in this course using the approaches suggested by various specialists in the field who have devoted their lives and careers to considering such problems. These men and women have tried to formulate ways of separating out our own prejudices, fears, desires, and motives from what is (ideally) good and right and fair--to develop universal principles for action that will ensure that those who wish to do so act justly and without self-interest in everything that we do, to the greatest extent that it is possible for a human being to do so. But since we can't foreknow everything that will happen to every human being anywhere at any time, the ultimate choice is up to the individual: the answer, in effect, is always "it depends." Considering hypotheticals beforehand the way this course does works like the "fire drills" we have all experienced at school and at work, though: it makes us think a priori about the situation, and about what we ought to do if it (or something like it) happens to us, so that if the time comes when we have to act under such circumstances, we will do so rationally, rather than "freeze" in panic--or worse, take wrong, unethical, or immoral action.

Will it help make us wealthy, to ponder such principles (the way wrestling with the principles of engineering or higher mathematics might)? Probably not. But its purpose is to enrich our moral beings, and thereby the quality and virtuousness of our lives.

I hope that's helpful.

(msanford) said:

Sunday 27, December 2009, 6:49 pm

watching the libertarian conversation. obviously if rich aren't taxed disproportionally (sp?), then the poor will get nothing and revolt thereby destroying any market that rich can earn in. so rich have to keep poor relatively happy or rich will have their heads cut off by the guilltine like in france.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 10:04 am

There is a biological dimension to this subject. This podcast http://bit.ly/qoowE from Radiolab tries to highlight this fact.
It's especially interesting since they are using the same example as Michael Sandel (5 men vs 1 man on the rail track).
reply

(Janelson12) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 7:07 pm

I think there is a difference that isn't pointed out in the first scenario, that being that you as an observer are not in the position of responsibility so, if you do not push the man you are not directly responsible for any death. However if you do push the man you become responsible for one death even if you save the lives of the others. in contrast you as the driver are in the position of responsibility and must make a decision. The driver will always have death on his hands and because of this utilitarian calculation makes more sense. This is another reason i think people feel differently about the two situations. Considering this i think another question is raised: Are we as responsible for our inaction as we are for our actions?
reply

(Fatmanonthebridge) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 3:16 am

Fat man on the bridge,
Does Anybody See The Somewhat Ironic Correlation Between The
Cabin Boy
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 3:44 am

Very recently i saw this lecture. I appreciate all the members involved in this project. This i think is the best way to transform human society. Nothing in this world can transform a man than knowledge he gets. This lecture leads to tough question which requires great courage to answer. I thank Mr.Michael Sandel, the Harvard University and all the sponsors for this wonderful initiative.
reply

(thelunders) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 1:09 am

Michael Jordan and Bill Gates pee "into" the river that I get my drinking water from. The collesium goes right by my house and causes a lot of noise and pollution, etc. Are they going to borrow or pay for that?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 2, January 2010, 8:03 pm

A study of Morality is a study on what it means to be human. Human beings can make decisions and studying morality is simply about helping you be a better human in a society of humans by being a better decision maker on matters concerning humans.

When the people on the boat killed and ate the turtle nobody had an issue with that only when they killed the boy does it concern us. If the choice had been between turning and killing an animal or pushing an animal over the bridge most people would favor the death to the animal option. If it was the animals doing the killings then the study of morality doesn't even apply.

The study of Morality is all about protecting ourselves by shaping other human beings decision making to favor us in particular and everyone else in general. The study of morality should go hand in hand with the study of Etiquette and good manners.

The utilitarianism approach might be a good way to make a moral decision but it breaks down in some cases. What if the choice is between killing a loved one vs killing two people. Or killing 100 people of another tribe or nation in order to preserve your own. Another case is if you had to choose between your wife and your unborn child. Utilitarianism works well when you are being objective rather than subjective. If I had to choose between me dying and 50 other people whom I didn't know and I chose to have them die does that make me immoral?

There needs to be a distinction between being moral and being evil. I might be the most moral person but on a single occasion I am faced with a unusual situation and in the heat of the moment I make the wrong moral choice does that make me an immoral person? I don't think so. But someone who forever makes immoral choices is simply evil and this is the kind of person we absolutely do not want in our society.

Assuming that the majority of people are moral for the most part then it would serve us better to study what is the best course of action when somene commits an infraction by not being moral on a specific occasion. Should they be forgiven? Should they be punished? Should they be retrained? If punished by how much?
reply

(alanomar) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 3:02 am

Is self-sacrifice just?

Should one person die or several people die? Assuming that none of the participants wish to die,
if someone must die in order for the group to survive, an injustice (non-merited price, or inequity) will have been done.

Agreement to this injustice
by volunteering or by some "fair" decision rule is not going to make it any more "just".
There is no less equal condition to the living than by being dead.
In fact,
if self-sacrifice were truly an act that is just, it actually would not be so admired.
It would be seen as appropriate -- as doing what you were expected or required to do.
On the contrary, self-sacrifice is admired precisely because it is a uniquely unjust act. It is
a willfull act of injustice to oneself. To put it in
Hobbesian terms, it is a violation of the primary Law of Nature.

But then why do we praise it if it is unjust? Because that which is praiseworthy (virtuous) and good is not always just/fair/legitimate.

Next time you read The Republic consider the possibility that Plato's intent is to argue for a view akin to this.
reply

(Roocus) said:

Tuesday 5, January 2010, 2:25 am

I think a winning solution is the answer that promotes "no fear or less fear" in the community. As the community is judging here. If i live in a community of 2 people on planet mars and kill the other person, is it wrong? NO, how can it be, unless it unsettles me, then it is wrong. so we go with the pleasure or distaste of the greater community basically. (Which i have noticed can be swayed by news headlines either way)

So..the person over the bridge?! it is wrong, we cant have the community walking around bridges being scared of being pushed off.

cannibalism out at sea? well, this is ok, i'm not going to walk around in fear of being eaten due to the outcome of the trial, because in all probability they will eat pies 2 times a day for the rest of their life.

when choice comes into it... why ask someone else if they want to be thrown off a bridge? too much "fear" mongering there....Jump off yourself, that brings a better outcome to the community.
reply

(Mykel) said:

Thursday 7, January 2010, 1:28 pm

I have come to the conclusion that saying you can not put a value on human life is incorrect. To say something has no value actually means that it has a value of Zero, right? If that is true then instead of saying life can not have a value why not give all life a equal value that always makes it the most valuable thing like say 1 Million billion dollars.
reply

(Rothbard) said:

Sunday 10, January 2010, 5:19 am

The cost of every meal you eat could be donated to third world charities and would certainly be enough to save a life.

Unless you sell everything you own and dedicate all your effort to raising money for these people how can you say you value human life more than the things you chose to spend your own money on ?

In all probability your actions would show that you value a human life in Africa less than a cup of coffee ! (Every time you buy a cup of coffee you chose not to save a life through charitable giving)

It is easy to say that human life is priceless and easy to say that other people's money (taxes) should be spent without limit to save a single life.

However, when it comes to giving away their own hard earned property, it is amazing how little people actually value human life, other than their own and those of their nearest and dearest.

(Steven) said:

Sunday 10, January 2010, 8:02 pm

I hope at some point that we discuss the difference between legal and inalienable rights. The cabin boy had an inalienable right which was preempted by a moral interpretation of circumstance, and later challenged in a court of law.
reply

(Felipe) said:

Saturday 16, January 2010, 1:26 am

THIS IS IN REGARDS TO THE QUESTION ABOUT TURNING IN A ROOMMATE THAT CHEATS.
IF ONE HAS A TRUSTED SOURCE OF HELP THERE SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM WITH "TURNING" IN THE ROOMMATE.
reply

(dawn9999) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 2:31 pm

The idea of self-ownership is dumb.

Do you wear ANYTHING that you made your self?

Do you eat anything the your grew and
that you figured how to grow without the help of other people?

Can you make a car and a cell phone?

We, as pack-animals, have already been through this argument in order to come to the idea of making "taxes".

What has been horribly over-looked is the stupidity of making too many babies/people!

"Need" vs. "Deserve"

is irrelevant.

We, as humans, have been stupid enough make WAAAAAAAAAY

more people than can live well.

So, at this point, the ONLY people that can help at all

ARE the rich.

No, I am not about communism.

I am about BIRTHCONTROL!

I am about new Ideas.

NOT wallowing around in 100 ideas that haven't worked yet!

YES, we need to go to the rich for resources because

we have been STUPID about making too many humans.
reply

(jmcc526) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 4:18 pm

1) The train, you're the driver: I choose to head the train to the 1, not 5. I am an individual w/ power to affect the outcome. In my mind saving 4 vs.1 (the story is either/or) is the right individual choice.

2) Fat man choice: as an individual I do not have the right make make this choice for the fat man. #1 is about my choice alone.

3) The boat situation is not a real triage situation. The boat is about a small group of people, small enough for individual acts to be understood, making a good/evil decision for someone in their group. Even in dire straits where all might die, it is wrong for 3 to kill 1 so three might live. This is a selfish act, not an altruistic one. The lottery is interesting, assuming everyone competent to make this choice. But, if the loser backs out, I am not in favor of enforcing a contract to kill someone or having them commit suicide - if the loser changes their mind. Once he/she changes their mind, one is back to 4 in a boat in dire circumstances.

A more interesting "dilemma" was the practice of Inuit of leaving the elderly on ice to die. If one was born into this culture, and it was a culture wide decision that enhanced the survivability of the group ...

Regarding Bentham's utilitarianism - I prefer to put this in the context of good and evil, different concepts than more vs. less pleasure. Utilitarian, cost/benefit analysis does have its place IN COMMERCE, AND WAR. I love A Lincoln precisely because he was so empathetic with the cost of war, a great war leader. Cost/benefit analysis in the context of corporate decisions usually results in a conflict of interest against those who are going to pay the cost. But, if one is an actuary or a juror and you decide a thumb is worth ,000, unless one is knowingly participating in a evil enterprise (protecting a manufacturer from a negligent design, the Pinto example) - this is an abstract decision to facilitate a good function. So even if it is absurd to say a thumb is worth ,000, this act is better than no decision, e.g. the thumb is worth 0.

I have no trouble deciding that there is good and evil. What is interesting to me is that when one surveys the universe -good and evil seem to be a uniquely human thing. Nature, chance, chaos - these all may result in bad things happening to individuals, but there is no evil here. (I think the Inuit example, leaving their elderly on the ice to die, is a good response to a natural event.) But once humans leave altruism behind and begin to act with self interest, especially individual self interest - this conflict of interest can change everything. I am not against self-interest per se, but this self-interest can evolve to the point of evil. If you put your self-interest (real or biased) ahead of others in a way that is harmful to them, especially where they have no choice or disagree, society calls these people psychopaths. They just don't care what others think and feel. War and commerce are fair proxies for utilitarianism - and we know how brutally extreme the reasoning can be in a kill or be killed situation. Society's sanction of an act can not release the individual from mental culpability over what he/she has done. Only the individual can come to terms with their acts.

What is even stranger to me, in a science fiction sense is that if one could go back and stop a past genocide (murder baby Hitler, stop the African slave trade, the Spanish conquest of Central and South America, the Anglo domination of the American Indian, Pot Pol, Rhuwanda) - it is not that everything would change but that everything would have to be different ab initio. One can not flip a switch on this (even killing the baby Hitler). These horrible events are a quantum of individual events. It is as if nature says there is no moralizing about the past - only our current acts bind us, as individuals, and as a society, to our responsibility for the past and the future.

I like the challenge of thinking about this. Good Day.
reply

(dawn9999) said:

Monday 18, January 2010, 12:48 am

Vertebrates have reflexes.
Right or wrong, the hungry WILL eat who they can.

The wealthy will do well to remember that there are more poor people than there are rich people.
It is ALWAYS very easy for the poor to decide to kill and eat the rich
reply

(Carol) said:

Sunday 24, January 2010, 3:19 pm

I am thoroughly enjoying the series. It's refreshing old memories, and reawakening the philosopher in me--which is a welcome intellectual diversion from the harsh moral and economic realities of 2010.

I was a little surprised that the class seemed not to recognize that the first question (1. In general, is it permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people to prevent greater harm to a larger number of people?) was one faced agonizingly in the real world by Winston Churchill during World War II: whether to let the Nazis know that the allies had broken their cryptological codes by evacuating the city, or to let Coventry be attacked. He chose the latter, on the utilitarian principle that not revealing the breaking of the code would enhance the efficacy of British intelligence efforts, and bring a swifter conclusion to the war (thereby sacrificing the lives of the relatively few to save the lives of the many).

I have wondered again and again what I would have done, in his situation. Utilitarianism offers an easy answer--but does nothing to assuage the guilt he must have felt, condemning the people of Coventry to almost certain extermination.
reply

(aaronsfbay) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 1:55 am

In my opinion, there are three key problems with these discussions.

The first problem is that the arguers do not consider moral jurisdiction when making their judgements. We are all responsible for our own lives, and yes, we bear some responsibility for those around us as well. But we do not have equal jurisdiction over the lives of others that we do on our own lives. Likewise, the trolley-driver has a larger moral jurisdiction over that of the marauding trolley car than a random bystander on a bridge would have watching the trolley go by. Moral jurisdiction also answers the questions of why both the lottery and the consent make such a significant difference in the cannabilism case.

The second problem with these arguments is that the question "was it the right thing to do?" falsely assumes that there is a simple dichotomy of "right" and "wrong" things to do. That is not to say that actions cannot be morally judged. Rather, is it not more helpful to ask instead "what was a more right thing to do?". In the cannabilism case multiplied by one hundred, no one will say that it is "right" to take another person's life. But it would certainly be "more wrong" to categorically let 300 people die without evaluating alternative possiblities of redemption (however despicable they might be).

The third problem is that there is some confusion here between morality and justice. Justice is a completely separate question from the question of morality. It may be morally imperative to become a cannibal out of necessity, but it can also be simultaneously unjust in the eyes of the law. Each person lives their lives one (moral) choice at a time, while law (aka "justice") has obligations besides morality that it must consider (e.g. presedence and deterrance, among others).
reply

(renaissance3) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 10:07 pm

It's entirely possible that Professor Sandel could make an effective argument
for any side of any issue.
That being said, my husband and I are enjoying the discussion as prepared and presented by him and feel it to be truly brilliant.
We feel like we are excellent and good citizens but perhaps we will be even better after this course!
This will surely keep Ennui away from our door.

E
reply

(orlando012) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 10:21 pm

Q1. In general, is it permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people to prevent greater harm to a larger number of people?

A1. In general, it is never permissible to harm. This statement contradicts the very fabric of moral rigthouesness. When we justify an act to harm, we no longer have an arguement. The mean does not justify the end!
reply

(orlando012) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 10:22 pm

(orlando012) said:

Tuesday 26, January 2010, 10:27 pm

Q2. Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber?

A2. It can be legal, but not morally justified.
reply

(Charles, Sr.) said:

Thursday 28, January 2010, 12:20 pm

As a first time viewer of this program,I was pleased with the discussion taking place. In the 2nd part of todays program when they discussed taking from those that have and giving to those that have not, no one spoke about those who refuse to provide for themselves and/or their families. It is one thing to help someone who is trying to help themselves and another thing to be forced to give to those who refuse to help themselves.

It is a documented fact that there are families who have been living off welfare for generations. One case I read of had each member of the family receiving a social security check of over 00.00 per month giving the family a total income from the tax payers of over ,000.00 plus.

All persons, regardless of their income, should have the right to give money or anything else to whoever they wish to give it. Bill Gates and his wife have set up a charity group that has helped people of all walks of life already and will do so for many more years to come.

I would ask the students in all of the schools, is it fair or right for the members of the House and Senate who wright the laws and bills that govern our land, to exempt themselves,the president, their donors and other members of the government from those laws? Is it right or fair for those members of congress (our employees)to set their own pay and benifits without seeking the voters approval of same?

It would help if you in fact placed an image below this box with what you require in order to Post Comment.
reply

(E连人) said:

Saturday 6, February 2010, 8:05 am

who can do me a favour?I can not watch any video.Can anybody show me how to do it?
reply

(Lee) said:

Sunday 21, February 2010, 7:32 am

So do I!

(liao) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 10:56 am

The video is outside of the WALL, you must learn how to across it.(Youtube is blocked in China)

(woaiguzi) said:

Saturday 6, March 2010, 11:59 pm

You can find it on veryCD.com

(Ty) said:

Sunday 7, February 2010, 11:21 am

I wonder whether the class would have been persuaded by the following argument:
"A ship's captain is granted (by British Law as well as international convention) the power of life and death. The captain has the legal and moral responsibility to protect his ship and the lives of his crew. He is obliged to take all necessary steps to ensure their safety."

Thus, if to save his ship, the captain deems it necessary to send a man aloft, even though it means certain death, he is morally and legally obliged to give that command, as the crewman is equally obliged to obey that command.

If, after granting ships captains this right and responsibility, can we after the fact convict him of murder, for having exercised that right?

One last point: Such cases are generally decided by a panel of the captain's peers, rather than the general public, (e.g. a panel of captains and admirals) who are themselves aware of the rights and responsibilities of a captain at sea, and who know from personal experience the measures necessary to carry out that responsibility.
reply

(shaovandrill) said:

Monday 8, February 2010, 10:57 am

Answer to question 1:
when we are trying to harm people,no matter how smaller numbers they are,it is wrong.once we are going to do this,we are not helping other people,we are just to rob Peter to help Mike,same issue.
Answer to question 2:
I think it's right to do that,and also I think the police should do that.considering a terrorist who has planted a tomb trying to kill more people,we can treat this guy as a good person,he is a criminal-to-be.He regardless of others' lives,any reason of doing this would not be accepted.so in order to save other people's lives,we have to "sacrifice" him.however.normally I don't think torture a person to get information is good and legal,otherwise we have to ask Dr Lightman to figure out where the bomb is from the facial movement of the person.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 12, February 2010, 1:24 am

In the boat case, the key issue is that how we could determine killing the orphan will bring the sociaty greater good? Simply because there will be no one miss him but the rest has families back in England? I do not see this right.
If we can not explain that, the rest is meaningless.
reply

(williammurrayhapper) said:

Saturday 20, February 2010, 9:31 pm

Why does he ask you to presume you know all will die in the Train Car 5-1 example?

Not that you actually would know that for sure, but the truth lies in the logic of your metaphysical feeling. Professor Sandel preposes that the ultimate reality you will feel is what you feel in combination with what you see.
I believe some of these students assume they are validating their answers, but really he is manipulating this supposed validation into what is really a justification of beliefs. The deduction of utilitarian and metaphysical logic. WUP WUP WUP
reply

(Lee) said:

Sunday 21, February 2010, 7:52 am

I don't think killing a man to survive others is right,even I don't know whether anyone has basic power.As someone said,murder is murder,erveryone wants to survive,we are not the God,we don't have this power!What I believe is my life belongs to me,in case of that I'm willing to end my life to save others,others I think are all injustice to me !
reply

(angiecao) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 8:15 am

Firstly, I have to say that everyone has his right to determine whether to live or not rather than being determined by others.
On the other hand, there is not always only a right and a wrong, but also something in the middle. There always will be something you cannot and even others cannot justice whether that is right or not.Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the utilitarianism and some other method of philosophy is just such kind of thing.
reply

(qqqxiaoshu) said:

Friday 26, February 2010, 10:06 am

my opinion about the case for cannibalism is that we have some wrong assumptions about the four people.
and also in the story we don't know one thing that is if the other 3 persons didn't eat the cabin boy, then when they would die? now i suppose that the time they decided to eat the cabin boy is A and if they didn't eat the cabin boy the time they die is B .Now the consequences can be devided into two different results.

the first is that if the other three didn't eat the cabin boy and we know that they would all die when time B came but they were not rescued. Then in this case, we know that all would die. So, killing the cabin boy is right.

the second is that if the four were rescued before the time B came. Then, killing the cabin boy, no doubt, is wrong.

So, what I want to say is that, because they didn't know wether they could be rescued if they killed the cabin boy.So, the fact is that they killed the cabin boy in order to improve survival rate of themselves.No doubt, in this discussion I think that they are not morally permissible.
reply

(cuandocomienza) said:

Tuesday 2, March 2010, 11:50 pm

Hi: does anyone can help me? I found these videos really interesting. the problem is that Im not an english speaker so there are some ideas I don´t understand quite well. that´s why I need some help. Maybe from someone who is learning spanish and give some help in return. this is my mail ab_oswald@hotmail.com and we can check the details
reply

(ladulala) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 7:28 am

1, I think the jury didn't experience extreme hunger. That is wrong to let them judge these two men who eaten human in such extremely hunger and desperate situation.

I bet most of you never stop eat food or drink water more than 48 hours, now you try to criticize these two poor victims who havn't eat and drink for more than two weeks?

make your decision, after fast for two weeks
reply

(woaiguzi) said:

Sunday 7, March 2010, 7:23 am

Q1.if majority>>minority
than
permissible;
else
forbidden;
Q2.NOT legal,but moral permissible.Because the man have done something harmful to the majority.

About this episode,i would like to come up with a question about pushing the big fat man to stop the trolley car.
Suppose you are standing on a large bridge overlooking a trolley car track,standing next to you is a very fat man.And at that time,down the track comes a trolley car,the track is unfinished and the end of the track is the river.The brakes don't work,the trolley car is about to running into the river and the passengers will all died.If you know the trolley car have more than five hundred passengers,WOULD YOU GIVE HIM A SHOVE TO STOP THE TROLLEY CAR?
reply

(woaiguzi) said:

Sunday 7, March 2010, 7:39 am

And then we further discuss this question.
You just instantaneously notice that something is beside you,you didn't know what it is.Obviously,you will push it to shop the trolley car.You save the passengers but soon you recognize you just killing someone very fat.DID YOU THINK IT IS LEGAL FOR WHAT YOU DID?

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 14, March 2010, 8:08 am

加油
reply

(will_lee) said:

Sunday 14, March 2010, 9:50 pm

Everybody has his/her own right of living, so it will never be legal to take anybody's life away even with consent.
reply

(dalong016) said:

Monday 15, March 2010, 5:22 am

I am Chinese.I am quite agree with the categorical moral principles. In most situation, I can give my answers to what is right or wrong, however, sometimes I am confused with "what should I do".
It is easy to evaluate other people's behavior,but if I was in that situation, I would have to find a solution.
Just take the case of Dudley and Stephens as an example, what is the most appropriate solution should the four crew members to adopt according to categorical moral principles? All dye or kill one in some way? Who can give me the answer?

Personally, if I was one of the crew, I would agree with the lottery, since all the four lives should be equal. After I was rescued, I would like to accept the punishment of law for I killed one person, as long as it was not death penalty.
reply

(Jim) said:

Tuesday 13, April 2010, 6:34 pm

I think that what is morally correct is not necessarily just. A society may establish its own code of justice but allow the individual to retain their own sense of moralty. Justice would demand a sense of equity or fairness. Morality does not have at its essence what is justice. Perhaps, we could ask "what is more moral" and "what is less moral." Just being by de-facto what is fair or meeting the demands of what is equitable. There would not be "what is more justice" as opposed to "what is less just."
reply

(samwang) said:

Thursday 15, April 2010, 2:59 am

as to the second question ,I think I'm with jack
reply

(Ztiony) said:

Monday 19, April 2010, 5:16 am

i like it so much that i can't help downloading all of these to watch then again.really really great minds
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 24, April 2010, 4:30 pm

First of all, we should clarify that a value judgment always refers to whether treating man as a means of attaining certain goals, in order to exclude pure economic problems from our discussion. Albeit confining within the field of ethics, the speaker’s assertion that if a goal is worthy then any means of attaining that goal is justifiable, is persuasive to many people. But, my own ethical principle is, even if a goal is worthy, the value of a means should be valued independently, in the light of criterion of value judgment. Let me prove my principle by case study as following.
There is a famous Trolley Dilemma, which is: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by the mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to the track. Should you flip the switch? Yes, it is the general answer got by researchers. The result is understandable, after all, to anyone, it is worthy to save five persons’ lives, even at the cost of one person’s. Furthermore, some people may justify the flip by the thinking that the value of five lives is always greater than that of one. However, is it tenable?
Following the track of those speakers, which essentially is an economic perspective, we will face a new dilemma whether the action has its own legitimacy relies on the compare of value numbers between the two sides. Then, what should the answer be, if the one is Einstein? Theoretically, it is impossible for the existence of universal ethical norms on the basis of utilitarianism.
Well then, is there any other way to justify the action? My answer is no, because to kill one person is absolutely unjustifiable, even at the same time five ones are saved. The deeper reason why people try to defend for the action is that they confuse the worth-and-justification with cause-and-effect. Admittedly, the safety of the five is the effect of the sacrifice of the one, nevertheless, there is no a so-called justification as an effect of the worth of the five’s safety, because, the value will not transfer along with causal relationship. Actually, if the situation is opposite, human beings will not have moral and freedom any more.
Finally, I will give an answer to the last query----according to your principle, we also can not accuse the driver by the fact that he flip the switch, because this fact only is the cause of the person’s death. Whereas, I have clarified at the beginning of this article that a value judgment is a judgment about the relationship between people, at least about the relationship between himself and his own. In this case, to justify the flip of the driver is meaningless, and to justify the driver’s killing of the one is impossible.
To sum up, different from a fact judgment, a value judgment estimates whether one is treated as a man in people’s relationship; and, different from in cause-and-effect relationship, in ethics, goal and means should be valued separately.
(I wirte this article for other purposes, but to plaster it here may be useful for current discussion. I use english as a foreign language. Thus, there may be some grammatical mistakes in it.)096
reply

(thelna1) said:

Sunday 25, April 2010, 12:08 pm

what if the driver pushes the fat man? Is the driver also absolved of wrong doing?

(thelna1) said:

Sunday 25, April 2010, 12:04 pm

regarding part 2 -

The moral question here is tricky. My personal opinion: Put in a mortal situation, we want everyone to act morally, however decisions and thought processes sometimes have to be adjusted; for the survival of the majority.

second: if you take the stance of "the strong survive" then i would prosecute you for murder. simply picking on the weak, throws away any moral justification for saving the group.

think about this from a personal point of view. If you had the opportunity to survive, would you want to? I challenge the moral high ground people: You can not make the decision you are making unless you have been in the situation. rules change, beliefs change in times of distress.

I would only prosecute those sailors because they picked on someone due to their social class. Not for murder, at least it was justifiable.

part 1.

Pretty simple. pushing the fat man over the bridge seems wrong, but it is no more wrong than changing tracks. However, while both groups of people on the tracks were in peril, the fat man becomes the innocent bystander, that gets brought into the action. This is a problem but may in the end be justifiable.

The medical questions were easy for us to answer because we have always had guidelines. We know it is unethical to decide for other people that you will take their life, even if it saves others. The good of many argument does not work in the short sited view. However, the reason we don't allow doctors to make the short sited good of many decision, in my opinion is because: in the long run, healthy citizens want to feel safe going into doctors offices and hospitals. If people knew they had a percentage chance of being killed to save others, people would cease going to see doctors.

Would you see a doctor, if you knew that they could decide to harvest your body parts to save a dozen people.

Also, people need to think when they say it is justifiable to eat someone else if they concede to it, or offer. In the United States, it is illegal to commit suicide. How do you handle that? the people on the boat would still face charges for either coercing a person into suicide, due to the situation, or at least partaking in the suicide, by eating the body. That should make you as guilty as the person who killed or allowed themselves to be killed.

- Jason
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 26, April 2010, 4:31 pm

https://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 26, April 2010, 4:32 pm

I would crash into the 5 people because it would be a greater lesson for society. If 9/11 killed only 1 person, America would still be vulnerable. Crashing into the 5 people would, in the long run, save more people.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 26, April 2010, 9:46 pm

Why do we debate a philosophical question with a presupposed future?

In one sense, I see how assuming a definite future is important because: if we cannot decide what is right when there are definite outcomes, how can we possibly decide what is right when there are uncertain outcomes?

In another sense, however, arguing over options between two definite future alternatives seems misdirected and futile.

Let's assume we are at the moment of the decision between Option A (killing 5) and Option B (killing 1). The reality is that there are NOT ONLY two possibilities, but an infinity of possibilities. We could kill 5, we could kill 1, we could kill 4 as 1 escapes, we could kill zero, the track falls apart before we get to the workers, and so on.

The key point is that in this decision, some possibilities are JUST MORE LIKELY THAN OTHERS (e.g. killing someone is more likely than the track falling apart). Nevertheless, the infinity of possibilities still exists regardless of their relative probability. It only makes sense then, to focus only on the most probable and dismiss the less probable.

With that in mind, shouldn't we choose the option with the least possible "badness?" For example, shouldn't we choose Option B because the possibility for killing 1 in Option B is less than the possibility for killing 1 in Option A? In other words, assuming all 6 workers are equal (we can't distinguish between them), 1 is more likely to escape from the tracks than 5 workers.

Ultimately, my claim is that, with an uncertain outcome, we should drive our decision towards what we determine to be the best option based on our awareness of the possibilities.

Assuming that we know the fate of existence launches our inquiry into a fictional world that bears no significance EVEN IF WE WERE TO DECIDE the justice between the two options (i.e. if we choose 5 vs 1, so what?).

The inquiry based on possibilities, rather than outcomes, seems like the only proper way the make philosophical debate applicable to reality.

Please debate... I am open to being proven wrong.

- RF

P.S. Does the categoricalist care about relative probabilities?
reply

(Mbiem) said:

Tuesday 4, May 2010, 6:04 am

What a great resource! It's nice to see so many other people who appreciate this topic. Even though I've taken several courses in undergrad covering these topics it's been really stimulating and interesting to go through them again later in life.
reply

(shush) said:

Tuesday 18, May 2010, 8:37 am

“The familiar turned strange” is this not the point here. Professor Sandel lays out this as foundational to these discussions. The absurdity of situations actual or conjectured should drive one to call up the base line of one’s deep nature. Cases present the consistency of our hearts and minds. Stretching the circumstances pushes against who we are and the values we in truth have. If you press a wild animal with no place to run, the nature of that animal is exposed. These hypotheticals serve to press us to a place where we could not run. Let us explore.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 10, June 2010, 3:14 pm

I haven't finished the video yet, after watching the case of the trolley vs the case of the rails where the five workers were and next to them was one. I couldn't resist typing out my ideas, which I think explain the difference of the poll between the two cases, because unlike the assumed similarity between the two cases, there is indeed an important difference.

First off, if one would ask me; what would I do; I would hit the one worker, but wouldnt push the fat guy. These cases are only made seemingly similar but are in fact very different.

The difference between watching an accident unfold, and being the unlucky driver of this accident shapes our opinion regarding these. Being the driver of the car implicates us as more then a bystander, we feel a responsibility to do something, or rather WE are IN that situation when we are in the car. When we see the trolley go down, we are a onlooker, though horrified we may be, we consider ourselves to be onlookers if we are to compare the level of involvement between the two cases. This is the fundamental factor that is responsible for the difference between the two polls.

The case is designed to let you think about the value of one's life, this is in fact the wrong focuspoint, it distracts you from the personal reasoning that belies the decisions you make in each case. It assumes a rational mind that in both cases should weighs the life of one person versus several, but this is in fact a misleading assumption, for we are not rational. We act according to our sense of involvement to a situation, which knows not only one dimension, but several.

There is however, a second difference that counters the assumed similarity of the two cases. The fat man, is ALSO an onlooker, he belongs to the same category as you do, both are looking down, and seeing this trolley. This confirms this sense of being an onlooker, which is now socially enhanced by seeing others do the same. This, more then anything, elevates the fat man to the point where you consider him to be 'not part of the situation' as opposed to the one worker at the other rails. This worker is considered to be part of the situation for exactly the opposite reason that the fat man isn't; you do not identify yourself as an onlooker, and you do not identify the worker as such aswell; the choice between five vs one in the case of the workers, is therefore much easier to decide to go for the one.

Next topic? ;)
reply

(wsoutherland) said:

Friday 11, June 2010, 4:42 am

For the trolley car scenario, common sense would say to take out the 1 worker since he has the best chance to jump out of the way. The blame for the accident is solely on the maintenance for the brake, so the choice is largely irrelevant. That said, the guys on the main track may be more aware than the guy on the off-track. They should have safety procedures that everyone knows about to guide the decision.

As for the cannibalism, they should be tried and convicted of murder, but then pardoned. Pardons are for extreme circumstances. People need to know that murder is wrong. People also need to know that if they gang up on someone, they better get their story straight. What idiot takes that kind of evidence with them to shore?

Same goes for torture. Torture should be illegal. If someone feels strongly enough that the person will crack and tell them "where the nukes are" then they should be fine living with the consequences, which should include being fired and some prison time. If the bar is set any lower then there will be abuses. That said, the information they get should be viable in court if it is corroborated later.
reply

(afei) said:

Tuesday 15, June 2010, 7:20 am

next topic
reply

(yuesijie) said:

Wednesday 16, June 2010, 10:47 am

china why can't why
reply

(richardjkw) said:

Thursday 24, June 2010, 3:44 am

关键是他们杀的是儿童，在道德上不容易使人接受。
what if there's not the kid be killed，what if a man？
reply

(richardjkw) said:

Thursday 24, June 2010, 3:47 am

anyone？

(maxwellyc) said:

Wednesday 30, June 2010, 12:03 pm

I suppose the essense of consent is to make the people who take lives of other people feel better themselves, and to pursuade themselves that doing something that is not morally accepted is ok, which is still not ok. Which make up as a good excuse to do something unmoral, people generally accept this kind of unmoral act because when they saw consent in the case, they link it up to other cases in life such as taking something from others under permission is ok, but which then in cases that involve lives this criterion does not stand anymore.
reply

(Squee) said:

Thursday 8, July 2010, 8:27 pm

I could be rehashing above arguments, but tl;dr all of them:

1) the whole debate is already framed to determine a "moral" right in these scenarios, and then Sandel offers insight into the moralist philosophers who categorized certain sorts of moral thinking. The context for the debate is: consequential vs categorical morals n

2) To accept Sandle's guidance in the debate, one ought to remain in this context... many didn't but he handled it well. The lesson of consequential vs categorical morality is the point.

3) Categorical thinking will be easy to find contradictions in with contextualized arguments, consequential thinking will be easy to undermine with any "missing data" in the moral stance taken.

3) since this is a lesson via debate, I gleem the lesson that neither moral strategies are adequate for knowingthe reasonable response to such contextualized and fixed dialogues in hindsight. Not skepticism, but a conclusion of inadequacy in both consequential and categorical moal thinking to handlsuch deeply existential decisions or even to effectively understand the Nature of the contexts.

4) I am not of either persuasion so my actual answers to these scenarios do not fit the lesson.
reply

(Peter Pan) said:

Sunday 11, July 2010, 10:06 am

Well, I got nothing to say for the 1st case.
But the 2nd case, I'm pretty sure the same side with Marcus, U got to do what u got do.
This is not a easy judgement to make, really. Especially when adding to the assumptions such as consent and lottery.
However, in this case we can actually eliminate them. And this is due to the condition.
Whole story set on sea, far away from land, which is considered out of reach of civilization. So in this case, without the normal human society 's interface, it's pretty much like u live in a world without morality, like an animal world.
In the animal world, the only way to survive is getting stronger, if any way u can. It's not about morality any more, in the extreme hungry case, the desire of survival will exceed the boundary of morality, it's really a natural process.
I am not talking about human the same as animals without morality. Human is definitely different from animals, because we have knowledge, emotions and morality, that distinguish us. But what I want to emphasize here is not this, all human beings, based on Darwin's evolution theory, comes from animals, and during the experience of interacting with different people all the time, we developed our civilizations. So here comes the point, all these civilization will easily break down without the communication of human beings. The human society is the media for culture to survive.
In the case, sailors are lost in the sea, isolated from the human society, so all the morality can easily break down after certain time. That's why I think they should not be judged guilty, because this is not their fault, it's the weakness of civilization that should be blamed!
reply

(DmitriPisartchik) said:

Wednesday 28, July 2010, 1:14 pm

1. In general, is it permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people to prevent greater harm to a larger number of people?
2. Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber?

As to the First Question, I answer that:
Much depends on the nature of harm being done and the harm being avoided. Surely it is not immoral to impose some significant degree of discomfort (say mild pain) on some small number so as to prevent a far more significant harm (say loosing their life) to some greater number. Indeed, I think this is so in virtue of the fact that the two harms, while certainly harms as such, are of morally diffenent categories in so far as experiencial harm, such as the feeling of pain or discomfort, is morally inferior to, in the sense of being fundamentally less significant than, the harm of significant deprivation, such as loosing normal functioning, opportunity and being denied the pursuit of one's interests.
Consider, for example, how readily we are prepared to impose on ourselves the pain and discomfort of excercise, both mental and physical, so as to maintain or expand the range of opportunities open to us, either athletically or intellectually. In virually every pairing that I can think of, the harm of experience is, at bottom, decisively less significant than the harm of deprivation.

As to the Second Question, I answer that:
From the point of view of morality, it would be immoral NOT to torture the bomber as that would place his experiential wellbeing, ie being free from pain and discomfort, over and above the lives of the victims, which encompass the array of opprotunities and interests that they may pursue had they lived. Having no other qualifications to consider, I submit that one OUGHT to torture the bomber.
I should note, however, that morality and reality do not always intersect. While in principle one would have a moral duty to torture the bomber, in practice things are more than likely to be different. Given the limitations of our knowledge and the suspect reliability of the information derived from convictions by torture it may well be the case that the best thing to do would be to ban and outlaw torture entirely. Perfect knowledge and perfect reliability of testimony are philosophical devices, not aspects of the world that would should take as given.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 10, August 2010, 6:48 am

Claim of only 2 choices for trolley passenger, is false
reply

(Niu) said:

Tuesday 10, August 2010, 7:10 am

In general, is it permissible to harm a smaller number of innocent people to prevent greater harm to a larger number of people?
I think it wouldn't be permissible.We can't prove the sacrificed few people are less important than the saved ones(even they are larger in number),so we can't say we have created the most utility.And whether it is permissible or not depends on whose side you are on.Those who would survive in the end may agree on the sacrifice,but for the sacrificed,he definately wouldn't willing to do so.And if spirit doesn't exist,after his death,his connect to the world is lost,and he wouldn't know the result of his sacrifice.And he has no way to prove others are living well,he even can't prove the whole world still exists.But if sprit exists,it seems permissble.
I'm a student in China.I expect your tolerence if I have used incorrect words or phrases,or if I have offend you regading religions.
reply

(G0NZA!) said:

Wednesday 25, August 2010, 7:53 pm

The argument that there can be no guarantee of survival if they eat the boy, shoots itself in the foot, because if that's the case, then they are all going to die soon anyway. A quick death may even be preferable to death by starvation. That is, if he isn't killed by the flu, hypothermia or something else first.

This situation is about survival of the fittest. Not in the sense that they should each stick to their own agenda and kill and eat each other until there is only one left, but rather that since cannibalism seems to be their only means of survival, it is only natural to start off with the person with the smallest chance of survival - the boy who drank sea-water and got sick.

I don't see why the fact of the boy being an orphan really matters here. He is just as likely to contribute to society as the other crew members. Nelson Mandela, Johann Sebastian Bach, Leo Tolstoy and Edgar Allan Poe were all orphans. Life is what you make of it, and it cannot be measured or valued by the amount of friends you have or the size of your family, nor should it.
What makes Parker's life less valuable in this particular situation is that he is sick and unlikely to survive for very long in the harsh conditions they find themselves in.

In my opinion, the utilitarian argument of pain vs. pleasure is very short-sighted. By utilitarian reasoning, the crew members were to eat the boy, simply because it would give the most people (family of the sirvivors) the most immediate pleasure.
This does not take into account the possibility that, should he survive, he might have grown up to make a massive contribution to society like the orphans listed above, thus applying even more pleasure to even more people than the other crew members combined.

It seems to me, they made the right decision for the wrong reasons.

PS: I find the idea that the orphan's life is less valuable, just because he is an orphan, quite revolting. It gives him a social status equivalent to that of the African-Americans of that time and the German Jews in the 1930's. In that light I agree with the guy, who argued that utilitarianism is a shortcut to genocide.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 10, September 2010, 2:17 am

How can they make the right decision for the wrong reasons? Do you mean that they have
made a right decision in killing and eating the boy, except that they had wrong reasons in
doing so? How can a decision that has the wrong reasons at the base, be right?
If the orphan lived and if he caused trouble in the society, then this may seem a
right decision. Also, if they all died due to the spreading of the illness that this boy had,
then this decision would seem to be right. However, for now, I mean the time of that
happening, I think that decision was wrong. Because, just as you mentioned, they had
wrong reasons.
AND another thing, I just want to understand you point here...
Are you saying that according to the theory “the survivor of the fittest” it was natural and
right to kill this one sick boy? Also, that the matter that he is an orphan does not matter?

(define_genius) said:

Tuesday 31, August 2010, 11:24 am

1. In general, it is permissible for a few to suffer for the larger population, but that doesn't make it justifiable. The same argument is used to orchestrate genocides.
2. My assumption is that the opposite of torture would serve as more effective in extracting information. Although it would create incentive for terrorism, offering money and pleasures to an individual with crucial information leading to prevention of mass murder seems a more reliable means of obtaining the correct information, if any.
reply

(nabi) said:

Wednesday 1, September 2010, 8:03 pm

what is the problem with the guys(who ate the parker)

me : i understand the desperate situation. although they committed a very serious crime and couldn't get away with it. but sadly the captain had no regret in killing a innocent cabin boy. and that is the real moral problem. if the men who did the horrible thing to the boy felt guilty, there are some rooms left to be sympathy.

my wife : under any circumstances, cannibalism is never be allowed. the crew men had to choose die humanely. their act of eating people was , is, will never be forgiven by any of us.
reply

(DaniloD.) said:

Thursday 23, September 2010, 2:13 am

I agree with the people who choose taking a left turn and killing that one construction worker, instead of going on and accomplishing to kill five workers. I also agreed with Sandel when he mentioned that in the logic of live, it's more acceptable seeing one person die from a incident, than watching five people loosing there lives to an on coming trolley car that had lost it's brakes. Moving down the subject, he also gave another option mentioning that instead of the five workers dying, a fat man standing on a bridge (right before the trolley car gets to hurt the five workers), could be pushed off the bridge by someone. The fat man would indeed loose his life, but five other people will be safe if he's pushed off the bridge. Sandel asked the audience if they would volunteer on pushing the poor fat man over the bridge, and about ninety percent disagreed on doing such thing. I would in fact be one of those ninety percent that would dare to use my own strength to commit murder.

Moving on, Sandel's second argument was on cannibalism. I am totally against that believe or action. Eating someone's body parts and blood with skin tissues and bones seems to be a huge problem for me, and I'm sure not only me. A young man from the crowd said "that you have to do what you have to do in order to survive". Yes I agree with that saying, at least, but I dont believe that we would have to do so much and get to such an extreme to having to eat another's body parts. It just doesn't seem, or just isn't the actions one should take n matter how bad their desire for food/energy is. So me as a individual, I'm TOTALLY against the action called Cannibalism. It is just not a regular human being's style.
reply

(harmonious1) said:

Tuesday 28, September 2010, 6:00 am

1)problem: trolley out of control = technology...therefore, the question is what can we get away with if we employ technology to decide against our natural proclivity 'not to kill'
2) problem: whether to push the fat man down or carve up the innocent to save the organ starved....therefore, the question is: when can we kill, 'as if' ethics or suffering could be quantified..?

both are flawed for these false assumptions
a) suffering can be quantified
b) killing is sometimes unavoidable
c) 'necessity'

Other options for the cannibal sailors' case:
1) collectively pray to God for some ship to come and save them, however long it may take..
2) Captain could have offered to sacrificed himself (as per the old dictum of the day...the captain should ensure the safety of his passengers first while he goes down with his ship..)
3) each survivor could have meditated (as in Buddhist meditation) on their dire condition with equanimity.. death is part of life.. each day is a parting from life's shore, only to crave another..
reply

(cuandocomienza) said:

Tuesday 12, October 2010, 9:19 pm

i´m not a native speaker of english so i have problems on understanding some words. can you help me? ab_oswald@hotmail.com. my mail in case someone can provide some help
reply

(fankathy) said:

Friday 22, October 2010, 12:21 pm

one question about the 3:1 case in the sea. if the dead person is the father of other three, is it reasonable or morally
acceptable? The answer is yes in most cases. people does not even think it as a murder when they have been moved by the
great love of the father. However, in this case, even the dead person agree to die, he still owns a lot of people's
mercy to try to fight for his right. So I would say that the reason lies in the goal of these people who want to be
alive. Yes, to be alive is of on doubt, but why? to enjoy the life? or to do what has been left? Professor mentions the
killer's family,friends, and their happiness. People evaluate whether they do is right by considering the amount of good
things would come out. But why not just consider the dead person's feeling,why taking too much others into consideration?
so if the person himself has no hope for the world and has found the meaningless of life,then leave would be acceptable.
if others bring out their family as excuse, that would be meaningless.
reply

(nwojewoda) said:

Tuesday 2, November 2010, 12:51 pm

Ok, here's my initial objection to the "consequentialist vs. categorical" moral worldview: isn't the categorical worldview a subset of the consequentialist one? Think of the various reasons you would consider pushing that fat man on the rail tracks wrong, and it'll inevitably lead you to the realization that those reasons have as root causes an innate desire to maximize utility (your utility, that is). For example:
1) Because you might go to jail => jail is bad for you, therefore you prefer not to push him
2) Because others might judge you as a murderer => your reputation would be at stake, which is bad for you, therefore you prefer not to push him
3) Because your action might be in vain => you would feel guilty, which is bad for you, therefore you prefer not to push him

What do you guys think?

Ciao,
Nicolò
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Comments (19)

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 2, December 2009, 6:17 pm

I find it somewhat troubling this represents the "best and the brightest" in our country. No one seemed to consider that Parker in essence "drew the short straw" by drinking seawater.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 3, December 2009, 7:57 pm

Cabin boy should live. The reason, youth should not die first.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 2:27 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 3:40 pm

We can not possibly know what is right, until we solve the one wrong, which is murder, including abortion. Until every possible motive for murder is eliminated such as fear of having a worse life as a parent, or even if you are virtuous, and choose an abortion, only to save the child from the selfish misery of life.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 2:09 pm

The one wrong is not murder. It's closemindedness.

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 3:42 pm

so we need to eliminate selfishness
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 4, December 2009, 3:45 pm

and you know... tax revolts...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 7:19 pm

Klaus--re: The shipwrecked individuals. The matter, its moral justification, must be evaluated in context, i.e., it must be adjudicate by the principals that the survivors themselves employed to "justifiy" the killing and eating of Parker. For simplisity's sake let's set aside the issue of canibalism and focus on the killing of Parker.

What are the priciples the survivors employed to justify doing what they did? From my perspective, or as I see it, I am not refering to the excuses they offered subsequently to the act, either on board, or after their rescue to loved ones, the court of public opinion or at their trial. I am refering to the principles of justice and morality as brought out in the evidence of the facts of the case as it transpired. Before I begin to illustrate my point let me say that I know no more of the facts of the case than was brought out in the lecture. Nevertheless there are some facts that lets us evaluate and judge if the survivors acted just and moral--pricipled.

We were told that early on the captain suggested to one of the others that lots should be drawn to determine who should be sacrificed for the good of the others. After objection, that idea was put aside. The captain showed deference to the objections by another. This itself is an expression of a principle or a moral valuation; and how does this deference to another man's will compare to the deference or lack of deference shown to Parker in becoming the sacrificial lamb, and so on. Thus begins a forensic inquiry into the principles of morality employed, as evidenced in the record of the facts to determine if the survivors acted morally and just: meaning, the survivors must be judged and their actions must be justified by their own morality as given by the record of their actions, even if these moral principle were not explicitly articulated. All actions are moral actions or morally significant. The question then becomes. Did the survivors act morally and what does it mean to have acted morally?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 5, December 2009, 9:33 pm

Finding Dudley and Stephens guilty of murder does not demonstrate a flaw in Bentham's Utilitarianism. The "greatest good" in question in the lifeboat case is not that of the the sailors, rather that of British society as a whole.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, March 2010, 7:37 am

So many comments but I strongly agree with you~ :

What the three did was wrong (for the public) because the rule "muder is wrong" can not be bent for the greater good of the greater numbered public ... eventhough the public didnt seem to understand this, it is still true.

"...not demonstrate a flaw in Bentham's Utilitarianism."
I was gonna say that before I saw ur comment ... although I only just heard of Bentham from this lecture but his utilitatiranism is what I believe how most of our moral principles fundamentally based on.

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 1:10 pm

This is great... I took the course in 1987.. and loved it then, and love it now
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, December 2009, 2:49 pm

Great, but surprised

I thought Harvard would have a harder curriculum than me at Manchester. We do however go a lot further into the theories with about 3 different philosophers objecting to each and underlying clauses.

This professor is however VERY good at making the topics interesting.

He's GREAT
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 16, May 2010, 1:50 pm

So you feel comfortable performing such an extrapolation? Based on this lecture and a few others you feel Manchester has a more rigorous curriculum than Harvard? Just a guess, but I think you have an inferiority complex and you are eager to try to show how much "better" you are than Americans.

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 7, December 2009, 11:34 am

In my moral notebook, the one I wrote during my childhood and practice with today, tells me that a life that has a tomorrow should not be stopped from seeing tomorrow. Basically, only time has the moral fiber to end life. Agreeing to anything other than that gives someone else your right to die as nature had intended.

While my beliefs are such, I cannot be sure that my actions would agree during times of extreme duress like the men of the life boat. While I too, may have filled my belly or actually committed the crime of murder, it is up to that society that I so threaten by my actions to remove the threat from society, even if that means that they should end my life for the life I have taken. The moral of all should be that everyone has the opportunity to see tomorrow, and the punishment for going against those morals should be imprisonment for life without the opportunity for release.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 8, December 2009, 10:20 am

These examples are wrong! The trolley example does not have two comparable cases. In one case you have two options: you either kill one or two people. In the other case, you have three options: you kill one, you kill five, or you do nothing! The last option did not exist in the first case! Doing nothing is often desirable for those not involved in the event! Same with the doctor example!
Vince Orman
Ithaca NY
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 8, December 2009, 10:57 am

How the heck do you eat an uncooked man?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 5:03 am

Sometimes I get to wonder what is the right thing to do and this lecture has gave me an idea of what to do in may daily life.
Maybe from now on I will be able to define what I should do and should not do
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 27, August 2010, 3:58 pm

basketball jerseys
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 15, September 2010, 5:29 am

in listening this course,I first time realize that everyone has their own right as a citizen. since I have been educated, I was touch to contribute, to the nation, to the Party, to other people, but the text book,or the teachers never tell me what the right I have. they just kill the civic consciousness from the day you go to school to accept education in China.
and I think the course awake up me my civic consciousness, it told me that in this world, their some civilization that is much different from what I was taught, and theirs feels more reasonable.
actually we didn't have all those right they argue in the class,too much of these rights we should have that have been taken away by the government.
rocklin1977@gmail.com
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Comments (45)

(snoble) said:

Tuesday 8, December 2009, 1:24 pm

Just testing
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 8, December 2009, 3:59 pm

We need to think morally a human can't do this way as they are human..
i was thinking in near future when the robots gonna get all human capabilities and if there will be energy and living crisis for human and robots be the human sustain as they live long, need no energy like human...in crisis of earth what we will choose...living the robot...?

so the question arise whats humanities boundary line..morals...
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 9, December 2009, 3:44 pm

The circumstances dictate what action should be taken. In the trolley car storey, if you believe life is precious as most of us,and it is your choice, naturally you would try to do what would cause the least loss of life. In the terrorist story, do what needs to be done.I suggest finding out who his/her family is, and threatening (the terrorist) to kill them. I wouldn't kill them but it's worked with terrorists before. if it doesn't you do what you have to to save people from fanaticism. You DO NOT reduce yourself to the level of the terrorist by torture, just as the one who gives the injection to a serial killer does not reduce himself to the level of the murderer. the test is easy, would you be be afraid to meet the person whose job it has been for years to give the injection, on the street late at night, or the serial killer? I think we can all see the difference. srw
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 13, December 2009, 7:12 pm

The Professor posed the question whether or not it is permissible to kill the orphaned cabin boy versus the other members of the crew because they had families and to kill them would affect more lives. Given that paradigm we still only consider the future of the crew members and not the future of the cabin boy. Let us suppose the cabin boy were to grow to become the next Winston Churchill. Now pose the question again and consider the cabin boy's future--Whose life has the most impact on society?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 24, December 2009, 3:50 pm

I think that the moral question here is always between the withe and black answers, when the answer can't be withe or black. The only way to respond the question is consider not only the context and the categorical moral duties that we have. We have to consider too if we think that the moral questions has one correct answer of there's many answers. In spite of that, I think that the right answer is in a mix of the two thoughts: there's more than one correct answer but only a numbers of these is acceptable. In this new universe of answers you have to argue.

Miguel Pelayo
miguelpelayo@ug.uchile.cl
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 25, December 2009, 6:38 am

In my opinion, what makes the decisive difference between the example of driving the trolley cart versus being able to push the fat man, is that the fat man, in this example, could voluntarily have chosen to jump and stop the train. So where, in the case of being the trolley-cart driver, the responsibility rests solely on your shoulders, and not turning the wheel is as much making a choice as turning; in the case of standing on the bridge with the opportunity to push a fat man on the tracks, the responsibility is split. The fat man has a moral responsibility of his own and is fully able to choose either way. To make this choice for the fat man is therefor wrong.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, December 2009, 5:11 pm

Although these moral discussions are unavoidable, how can reflecting on issues that seemingly have no answer be of any good? We don't know what we do is truly morally just or not, when there are so many conflicting opinions. So how should we approach moral philosophy? Do we continue to live and make the best decisions we can make using the reflective qualities that we have learned from this course? And if not, what more can we do? How do we live with multiple options? To what extent do we need to know the right and the wrong and to do the right and the wrong, and therefore to what extent should we pursue right, wrong and truth given the confusion that it brings? I don't know how to live with no answers, all these varying viewpoints, I can't come up with my own, since there are so many different perspectives in each situation. Please advise.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 6:52 am

Watching the Youtube version of this lecture, I came to think that we murder everyday, by various means. It's the connection that matters. All death are someway related to somebody eles's needs. Laws are only aplied to the happenings that have obvious physical realtions ships. Suppose the orphan boy was commissioned to sail a boat and catch tuna for someone eles's need and he died in ship wreck. That's accecident won't be catagorized as a murder. So that's the black-hole the lecture's being driven into.
"You got to do what you just gotta do."
And if you don't like what you have done try to avoid it by packing more utilities next time.
Very interesting lecture, gave me a lot to think about.
Che, from the South
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 28, December 2009, 8:46 pm

Amazing lecture. It puts a lot into perspective for me.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, December 2009, 10:20 pm

1) There are 2 parts to this. First, numbers don't matter, innocence does. It is never permissible to harm an innocent to prevent harm to someone else, several other people, or more hundreds and thousands of people. Second, "harm" is too ambiguous. There is a huge difference between harm I pricked my finger and harm I got run over by a train. There are many degrees of harm in the middle too. Death is different. If you have to harm someone to prevent others from dying, that might be justifiable. Let's bring the innocence back to it. Harm one person to save innocents from dying? Definitely. Kill one innocent to stop millions from suffering harm? Never.

2) yeah, that's justifiable, as long as either they don't kill him if they think he's the one (as a suspect he could be innocent), or they better be damn certain he's the guy that did it (and therefore not innocent).
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 30, December 2009, 12:47 pm

there is a "Typo" in the pop quiz, on question 4, it says Created instead of Treated in the options.

THANK YOU!!!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 2, January 2010, 3:18 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 2:25 am

Given numbers do matter the only truly moral decision would be to sacrifice yourself, not to sacrifice someone else to save yourself.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 4, January 2010, 1:25 pm

Queen v Dudley and Stephens, [1884] 14 QBD 273 DC, provides the legal answer to Part 2 accepted in common law jurisdictions. The answer is that killing the cabin boy to eat him was murder. The historical footnote that is sometimes overlooked is that after their murder convictions were upheld, Dudley and Stephens were pardoned.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 8, January 2010, 5:00 am

My point of view on the cannibalism example is a little different from what was said by the students: To me it's no question of guilt.

Guilt is a "human" category and it can only be used for "human beings". Which leads to the question if those people on the boat could still be seen as humans or if they were deprived of their humanity by the situation (leading to the question if humans can be deprived of their humanity leading to the question what a human being is leading to the question if god exists - you can only find your personal answer to the dilemma after answering these questions for yourself).

To me - this is my very personal point of view, resulting out of my religious and cultural background and experiences - these people on the boat could not be seen as humans any more. Not eating nor drinking for such a long time increased the strength of their (I'm not sure if this is the right word) instincts or desires until they became stronger than
their moral values and ethical beliefs - those things that make us (in my opinion) human beings.

Therefore, they cannot be judged as human beings any more. The diary entry ("we were having breakfast") shows that too - they lost a part of their humanity on that boat.

Do I think what they did was wrong - as a human being, as a catholic, very much so, yes. I even think it would have been wrong if the boy consented. (The lottery thing is different because they would have all invested their lifes considering everyone equal.)

But I don't think this is the question in this case.
That's one of the few cases in which I'd say that the culprit is also a victim.
And isn't that what civilization, what technical progress is ultimately all about?
To prevent us from getting into these situations in which we stop being human beings?

(sorry for the bad English, I'm no native speaker)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 12, January 2010, 7:39 pm

Great Course!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 12, January 2010, 10:30 pm

By killing him for their own will his life is being used as a means to an end. Asserting that it would be just is a preposterous disposition of morality; it devalues a universal applicability of morality. My dilemma is that without some universality to morality than any act could be justified. Murdering, stealing, etc. It allows for circumstances to define the morality of an action, and can be used as precedence for moral justification at other points. It is a categorical imperative to ensure that we act in a universal manner to protect and promote any moral context. If it would benefit more to kill in this situation I propose a counter situation: would it be moral to make an 8 year old boy work in a sweat shop and lose his education, hopes, and dreams simply because it would be of benefit to his family which is in greater numbers than his own individual? To me, consequential morality would allow for differentiating adaptation of morality to a situation in manipulative ways to satisfy the needs of the situation. The categorical addresses the true value of the moral principle, which is why killing the cabin boy at any time would not be justified. Categorically, it would not be justified in the context of this situation, or in one of more severity.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 11:23 am

The questions that the life boat situation presents are pretty intimidating. Who is more valuable dead than alive as judged by their peers for the groups benefit? The actions seem to suggest that the outcome was based more on opportunity which makes it in my opinion even less acceptable. Had their positions been changed would the others have been as eager to act? Consent if it had been sought would not in this instance absolve their actions since they had collectively targeted the cabin boy. In my opinion the utilitarian interpretation of what is morally more acceptable is categorically wrong in this instance. It was morally wrong to take the cabin boys life even in a situation this desperate.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 17, January 2010, 11:50 am

Thanks to those who have made this course available to the many, it is very utilitarian of you!
The questions bring to mind what might take place in a terrorist attack. In light of 911 this is a very real possibility and those attacks influence my reasoning significantly. It would seem to be easy to say yes that it is acceptable however we have no way of knowing if it will give us the information needed. I would be willing to try any and all options to get the information if I knew for certain the information would be correct. However once we start using tactics that are extreme we enter onto a very slippery slope of what is acceptable. Once you compromise those standards it becomes easier to justify morally reprehensible conduct. My position is that even in a case of this nature it is not acceptable to use torture.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 19, January 2010, 8:09 pm

My son overheard the video and asked the question (out of the mouths of babes) - why is that any different than Catholicism - sacrifice of the one and then the (while the symbolic) eating of the body and the blood of Christ?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 20, January 2010, 3:09 pm

A question:

Take the runaway train example, however suppose that instead of having five people on one track and one on the other, there are five people on each track. Is it unjust to turn, killing one group of five over the other, even though the net outcome is nothing? What if you had to push five people in front of the train to save the other five?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, January 2010, 5:29 am

I'm sorry, but you can't apply morality to a situation like that. It's pure darwinism. The boy was the weakest, that's why he was killed. And you can't apply moral imperatives to that.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, January 2010, 8:20 pm

DA
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, January 2010, 8:24 pm

DA
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, January 2010, 8:25 pm

DA
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, January 2010, 8:26 pm

DA and Lawyers can play with Law and Justice is in the hand of some stupid group called Jury its mean there is no Justice system here in America, so what r u guys doing in here
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 22, January 2010, 8:28 pm

about Razmik Alchian case #1832406
Using innocent People as Bait is a Murder it’s not The Moral Side of Murder
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 1, February 2010, 9:00 am

我怎么看不了视频啊，朋友们
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, February 2010, 4:09 am

Me, too...I think it may have something to do with the Internet monitoring of the government. Perhaps the video is powered by Youtube.

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 6, February 2010, 5:23 am

应该是中国功夫,这个视频可能是油涂逼的

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, February 2010, 6:41 pm

Its great that there is such an interesting course to be shown in public. I'm an german philosophy student and my english is not as good as it had to be. But i can't stop watching the videos because of the amazing method of teaching by mr. sandel.

In the case of the cannibalism, i would say that life is unalienable, what also means that there is no possbility for one person to assent in his own death. May be because i read Hobbes this week, i think the best solution (in a way of humanity) is a fight between the involved, not only in a physical way, but also by scheming and conspiring. prima facie, this seems like the worst way to justify the act of Dudley and Stephens, but if i think about it, there is no alternative. categorically condemning this deed might reveal as a bad mistake in like situations. (I had to say much more about it...)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 6, February 2010, 5:22 am

如果牺牲1个人可以救10个人是不对的,牺牲1个人可以救10000000000个人是对的,那就等于承认了人的生命的价值是有限的.这样的情况在中国就是以矿难和其他各类伤亡中对于死者数额不等的赔偿,以及在1945年的日籍美国公民的遭遇来体现的.社会的价值之所以有价值就在于这些公民遭遇的不公正的待遇来体现的.因为相对这些不公正的现象,所谓的"先进的,文明的"社会才有所谓价值.那就是说社会的价值是由于不同社会间的不平等而存在的.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 8, February 2010, 9:17 am

I do not think "for their own survival subjective to the expense of others" is right. Parker was an orphan, if it became the reason to kill him, then does it mean that this society is too dark it? He should be given a good treatment, and that he felt the warmth of the community, making his return for the greatest driving force of society, as a useful person.
However, if Parker own initiative, at the expense, I think the other three individuals may eat him, should be for that is not the remaining three can subjectively change, but rather had to accept the objective and the implementation can not be considered murder, not illegal.
So I think under different circumstances, three individuals have been the result of judgments are also different, the key is to see whether the situation is that they were able to control the subjective or objective and accept the fact.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, February 2010, 6:40 am

About the case of killing the boy to save the other three, first we should admit that all men are equal in that thierlives are neither more nor less important than others. Therefore , one has no right to claim others' life.
So the two who killed the boy are not morrally acceptable.
However, if the boy agreed to be killed to save the others, it will be morally acceptable because the boy had the power over his own life, and it equals that he kills himself.
And with a vote, everyone knows the fact that they may have to kill themselves and give the power over their lives to the vote, so it seem morally acceptable for others to kill the chosen one, because he has aggreed to be killed in the case that he get the bad lot.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, February 2010, 9:31 am

理论上了来说，这个结论似乎很容易：因为每个人的权利都是神圣不可侵犯的，答案肯定是NO！但是具体到实际生活中，参与其中的人（这里是警察）往往便宜行事，用为大多数的公众受益来JUSTIFY理论上不可接受的行为，这似乎是主流公众可以接受或者可以容忍的潜规则。如果要尝试对此进行量化：多大程度上公众获益时，我们可以接受这种“不良”行为？这种量化的尝试将是可笑的和不可行的，因为这种潜规则见不得阳光。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, February 2010, 11:47 am

Part 1 - The Moral Side of Murder,

You should turn right to kill the 1 person why?
because he is at the end of the track, in those situations you would only think of buying more time, rather then thinking pessimistically that he will die for sure if you turned right.

Why? becuase by buying more time you can tell the 1 boy to get off the track for example.

You wouldn't push the fat man off because you have the choice to buy more time. that is to the end of the track.

2) Those men are all guilty who killed the sick boy, but if I was on the boat and really wanted to survive, i would wait for the man to kill the boy, and then kill the man who killed the boy, and say that I was scared that he would kill me next when he ran out of food. Then I would have 2 people to feast on.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, February 2010, 12:00 pm

Furthermore on 2)
With or without consent they are guilty. Imagine a person committing suide, asks you to push him off because he's scared to jump off himself, even if he had cancer and was going to die soon you wouldn't push him off. Even it it meant saving your life, you would kindly ask him to jump off himself. Now if you pushed him off, then you're definately guilty, even if it means saving your life, why? because the law punishes everyone the same way, for pushing a sick man about to die off the cliff who asked you to, and for pushing him off the cliff without consent. especially in situations like this it would be most likely perceived by court that you are evil to feast on humans.

But seriously, if I was on the boat with my brother and sister, and there was 1 sick person, if he was related to us we probably won't kill him and die together, or he would probably kill himself. And if he wasn't related and my brother killed him, I would still love my brother as before after we were rescued, and hope he's not addicted to human meat. That is if there was no law. What is morality? basically what we would feel comfortable to live with if there were no laws, and i'm pretty sure if my brother, friend or anyone killed the boy in that situation i'd be able to still accept him/her comfortably.

The question is not "to be or to not to be", it is not even a question, its simly you 'have' it and know what's right and morally acceptable or you don't.

The thing with humans, a flaw is when it comes to considering morality is the fact that people have lost the feeling of 'love' in society. They judge morality not from love but from a gut feeling. If you have some love in your heart, you would not blame the three men and I'm sure if he was your brother or sister on the same boat you may have well saw him shred a tear after he killed the boy, or try to act brave as what he was doing was so disgusting.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 9, February 2010, 11:45 pm

simple fact: once you see a choice you are responsible for making it (and not making it is a choice as well). so, as soon as you pose the question, you are deciding who will live and who will die. therefore you are deciding to murder someone and there is no way out of this dilemma.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, February 2010, 12:26 pm

Dr. Sandel's thought-provoking and engaging lecture reminds me of why I went to college for 13 years and earned three degrees. I miss those kind of lectures, the demands of thinking and sharing deep thoughts on basic issues of philosophy and humanity. Those times were the best times of my life, in feeling alive and able to think, digest, ponder and change my ideas of self and the world I had to learn to live in. I will continue to watch the whole semester of lectures to "wax nostalgic" and to share my own thoughts of many years of teaching Sociology part-time.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 10, February 2010, 7:16 pm

what if the other people follow this case ?what if they use this case as their excuse to defence their case?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 19, February 2010, 2:39 pm

at the 50th min, the 'if you are right then Bentham is wrong' bit: I believe Michael has pushed a false logic here. The 'utility' proposed by Bentham would also take the usefulness of morality towards the whole society into account. To justify the killing of one for the sake of three seems to agree with the principle of utilitarianism, yet it is possible that the effect of justifying killing in such way will consequently damage the happiness of the society as a whole.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 21, February 2010, 5:36 am

Nice teaching, but shouldn't they know these examples already very well? In Germany you discuss these questions when you enter philosophy class at 7th grade. I think not only Harvard students should think about these questions. This is why I really like this online project. Unfortunately the average american will not look these lectures because nobody discussed these problems with them when they were at middle school.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 22, February 2010, 3:18 am

Regarding the British case, I think it's not at all the question of morality or proper process which found by human beings. As human being, we still have to clearly understand that we are one of species in nature. Anyone disagrees with me please refer to the law of the jungle, the weak will stand as an easy prey to the strong.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 25, February 2010, 12:49 am

There is the fact that we are human beings, creatures of higher intelligence, and it's this power of decision that we have that puts us above being animals. The British case is obviously all about survival and whether it is morally correct. I think that the power that we have about wild animals, makes murder morally incorrect. So as the last student was saying, in ANY case murder is murder. Everyone is equal on this Earth. A beggar's life is worth just as much as the Obama's life. It shouldn't matter where they stand on this planet in society, they are both souls and it doesn't justify murder.

As for the second question, not many people smile upon the idea of torture, but I believe that as long is it is not to the point of death, that torture can be justified. The bomber put himself in that situation.

To take this even further, what if the only way to save all the people was to kill the bomber?

My personal opinion to this is that it is morally wrong, but if it was in the hands of the law, they need to protect and serve the people. Law is basically based on utilitarianism in the since that it looks at the whole picture.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 18, July 2010, 9:19 pm

it is very amazing
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (5)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 25, February 2010, 5:31 am

1、No. it's not permissible. As one of the guy said in the video, we cannot involve the innocent one who should not be involved or is not supposed to be involved in a harmful situation. it's not justice for him. But if the situation is this: the smaller number of people agreed to sacrifice and this permission is not under pressure or threaten, this may become morally accetable. Since people all have the right to decide their lives and in this case the hero choose to sacrifice and die, then it is ok.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 26, February 2010, 9:10 am

Regarding The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

First it is the seamen's have duty to protect the cabin boy.

If the seamen believe that it is ok to kill 1 so 3 can survive, I would argue they should kill not the smallest and weakest, but the healthiest and most robust since he would provide the most sustenance to the others.

They killed him because it was easier not for any other moral reason.

Second A lottery, even with consent, can not be fair.
Imagine the poor cabin boy curled up in the bottom of the lifeboat. The other 3 are drooling over him. They present the lottery idea. He consents. But why? There would be a 1 in 4 chance of him being chosen.
So he consents, not because he likes the idea, but because he is sure that if he doesn't they will kill him anyway.

The right thing would be for the highest ranking of them to offer himself as a sacrifice.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, March 2010, 9:53 am

Are animals have morality? As brought to the brink of death, unveiling the common nature instincts of human beings and animals, the crew were left nothing but survival. What's more, morality makes things worse, because morality always makes the survival more complicated as conscience affects people's behavior which may simply happen to certain animals.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 8:35 pm

one question: when Mr Sandel told us that scepticism is not the final solution,he cut there.Why did not he go on? Maybe there's something beyond scepticism,maybe something about religious beliefs?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, March 2010, 3:24 am

1)I think if the one died,the murderer is the five.But if the five died, the murderer is the brake.
2)for example,one country has five persons, and another country has only one person.The five cannot live. But,if the five start a war to the one, they will not died.Do you think it`s the juctice reason to their war?
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Comments (5)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 25, February 2010, 5:31 am

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 26, February 2010, 9:10 am

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 3, March 2010, 9:53 am

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 5, March 2010, 8:35 pm

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 16, March 2010, 3:24 am

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Comments (71)

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 11, March 2010, 12:21 am

I personally feel that Stevens and Dudley and the third man on the boat should not have murdered the Cabin Boy and eaten him in order to survive. Murder is murder and it cannot be justified regardless of the circumstances or situation. They should have just found some fish and had them.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, March 2010, 12:25 pm

非常好的視頻，這讓我深思，用一個例子來形容：要融化一座冰山，普通的做法是給它蓋上一層被子，視頻引導的做法則是，在中間打開一個洞，從中間去融化。

這將影響我們的認知方式，思維判斷能力、培養習慣、只能說哈佛就是哈佛，

如果我們也接受這樣傳授方式，也采區這種傳授方式傳授員工學者，那將會如何，效果有多大，不言而喻！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 17, March 2010, 12:26 pm

my blog www.so-blog.cn

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 26, March 2010, 2:11 am

为啥我看不到视频？为啥伟大的window7 IE安全设置让我看不到验证码？
一个部落要杀人祭神求雨，所有人包括即将被杀的人都同意，那么这个人该不该杀？
鼠疫村庄该不该强制隔离？企图逃到附近城市的病人在强制隔离不起作用的情况下该不该杀掉？
杀了人的凶手该不该受到惩罚？计划杀人的呢？想杀人的呢？为了救人而杀人的呢？
侵略别国的国家该不该收到惩罚？计划侵略的呢？有威胁的呢？为了救被侵略国而践踏侵略国的国家该不该受到惩罚？
一个例子能得出公正的定义然后普遍适用吗？实验室的结果能直接工业放大吗？
这种辩论就像是放一串葡萄，每个人都是摘那么一颗，从来就没有一个能提起一串的葡萄蒂。
所以我该去干点实事。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, March 2010, 6:03 am

优酷网上有啊

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 27, March 2010, 3:19 pm

NO. Regardless of the numerical equation, it could never be rationalized to extend one's own life, or particular group at the expense of another individual or sub-segment. A further consideration is that the 'cabin boy', if a youth should be thought of as being at a physical disadvantage to the other survivors and hence be entitled to a grater degree of protection. If the 'cabin boy' is of adult age (>=20), than there's an element of social status implied that the other survivors could use for their decision. If the 'law of the jungle' is going to be applied, than the oldest or weakest should be sacrificed first for the greater group.

pwm, couldn't afford ivy
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 28, March 2010, 5:58 am

Great
QQ525088030
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 6, April 2010, 5:40 pm

if you are hungry enought to eat a horse, you are a potential candidate to eat human body. More: www.administracjaumk.pl
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 8, April 2010, 8:19 pm

Different times have different standard of the moral.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 16, April 2010, 11:50 am

my life is no more valuable than another's. dying is not the worst thing that can happen to me. How could I continue to live knowing that I had taken an innocent's life? Besides, the meat would not be that tasty.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 17, April 2010, 3:05 pm

http://www.thegraph.org
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 20, April 2010, 10:19 am

真他妈难搞！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 9, May 2010, 12:40 am

很好。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 16, May 2010, 6:29 pm

Here is a hypothetical:

Two populations are floating on rafts. Population one's members are unwilling to commit murder or suicide. Population two is willing to sacrifice members to survive. Which population is more likely to survive? Repeat this experiment over and over.

Our morals are subject to the same kind of selection Darwin proposed. When you survey people, you are seeing the range of moral answers that are permissible in the human race. The diversity of answers to moral dilemmas actually contributes to survival. Different pressures compete to shape our collective moral landscape. An individual who is willing to commit murder to survive may have an advantage in some societies, but a society filled with such individuals is less fit than one filled with cooperative members. Hence these competing forces contribute to the diversity of answers seen here.

Colin Doyle
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 19, May 2010, 9:15 am

A discussion regarding the utility of utility may or may not be useful. lol

What is law is not necessarily moral and what is moral is not necessarily law.

Perhaps we need to contemplate the morality and utility of law itself?

Regarding Q v D
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 19, May 2010, 9:29 am

Regarding Q v D
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 19, May 2010, 9:32 am

Regarding Q v D and S, utility may be used to acquit them. However, even greater utility seems to be found in convicting them on the facts alone. That utility is the service to society provided by the rule of law. Without it,perhaps we would all be grocery shopping like Jeffery Dahmer.

D
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 19, May 2010, 9:35 am

I keep getting truncated by using the "and" symbol.

D and S certainly were not thinking of society or humanity when they murdered.

In order to make an omelet, you need to break a few eggs, but does the end justify the means? - not if you are the eggs.

Examine the limits as delta X moves toward plus and minus infinity. Things always seem to fall apart. Values are always in conflict.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 6, June 2010, 9:44 am

May Harvard Give Us the Subtitle within the Youtube Video?
I really like this video series.
Anyway, this open course is really cool
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 7, June 2010, 6:35 pm

I don't know if anyone has already said this... but in regards to Part 2 (about the cannibalism) with evaluating the "rightness" of utilitarianism, there is a major flaw in Bentham's idea. How do you measure happiness? Who's to say that a deed results in the greatest happiness or the greatest good? For instance, what if the men were not very well liked back home, even by their children, friends, and wives? And the boy had lots of friends and was involved in his community and would be sorely missed? In the boat there would be no way to evaluate this. It would all be subjective according to each person's account. Of course everyone is going to say they are the most adored, but that doesn't mean it's true. That's why I think that you cannot evaluate morals based on Bentham's utilitarianism. It is one of those things that sounds great on paper, but in practice falls apart.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 8, June 2010, 1:12 pm

What no one has touched on here, I believe is that, at least presumably within the philosophical foundation of the US, is that life is an unalienable right. One definition of unalienable includes "not to be given away". Which means that you cannot even elect to give away your own life. Under this assumption, neither a lottery nor consent are appropriate justifications for murder/suicide. Of course the details and individual circumstances matter.

For example choosing to run a car off the road into a tree to your death to avoid hitting a crowd would be a justifiable self-sacrifice. This situation is realistic, the decision involves a fairly fast judgement, and there is nowhere else to defer the moral authority to except the person making the decision in the car. We could argue about passengers in the car discussing what to do, but I doubt that there would be much time for that when the driver just has to react. It would not be appropriate to shoot yourself in the head so that a criminal mastermind would agree to remove his finger from the nuclear explosion red button. The moral authority can be deferred to the criminal mastermind in this instance. This situation is not truly realistic in terms of the normal course of life. It would not be realistic at all in absence of the 'intelligent organizing force' that the criminal mastermind presents. We could go on all day inventing details to make the decision more complicated, but again we must ask how realistic our scenario is. Of course our view of what is realistic will possibly change as time goes on, thus what is moral will have to continue to adapt.

On another note. Risk is involved in all aspects of life. The workers on the tracks signed up for the risk of working on the trolley track, thus they need to take it upon themselves to look over their shoulders to make sure they are out of harms way. Following this thought, regardless of who or how many of them die, it is a rare event that they knew they were risking. We all weigh this risk every time we get behind the wheel of a car. In the starving sailor episode, presumably all sailors knowingly signed up for such a risky endeavor. Maybe the cabin boy did not understand the risk and therefor it would never be justified to murder him. Also the detail that the cabin boy was sick and would be the least likely to survive matters as well.

But honestly, in my opinion, all of these situations considered are extreme cases, that are rare in the real world, and so any opinion on what is the moral thing to do has little bearing on society as a whole. In this regard, the decision is mostly arbitrary. The event is so rare, that any judgements will only have to be made once in a generation. So whatever the decisions happen to be, they will be forgotten by the time the decision has to be made again. The conclusion is that there is not a single 'right' thing to do.

In order to make the argument more relevant, the examples have to be less extreme and occur often enough in probability so that the judgements can be made often enough to have a lasting imprint in human memory.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 14, June 2010, 10:12 am

1. Does your premise not discredit immediately, any other reasoning?. National philosophy may constitute legal ground, not always moral.

2. Extremes happen in the real world..

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, June 2010, 8:50 pm

There is always a right thing to do, or at least the least wrong thing. To assert that extremes don't happen in reality is to shy away from the moral dilemmas that challenge us every other day. The difference is only whether we are conscious and responsible enough to really struggle with them. All too often, we take the easy way out and settle for some half-way point and careless rationalisation.

Let's say I take your point that these decisions are rarely made. Even so, how can we be so sure that they won't happen to us someday? If so, if the outcome of "choosing wrongly" in such a situation could have inexplicable moral and psychological consequences on our conscience and soul, do you not think it is wise to think about it now, to struggle with it while you have the seeming luxury of time before the situation springs itself upon you? Will you go about your daily life and pray you never have to choose; and then when you have to, you scramble to think, you make a hasty decision, and if you survive the incident, you will pay a heavy price should you choose wrongly (unless you can convince yourself you were utterly justified in your choice).

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 10, June 2010, 3:30 am

The real lesson here is to work and travel safely.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 11, June 2010, 8:04 am

I think, that cannibalism in this case is morally fuzzy, yes even undecidable. Supposed the other people will die, if the boy is not "sacrificed", you cannot determine what will make the greatest positive impact - let the boy alive or kill him - perhaps he will have changed the world to its best. He also has a intrinsic right to live. And even if he decides to be killed it would be morally questionable.
Personally, as a judge I condemned the incident morally as murder, but legally as OK.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 15, June 2010, 7:18 am

sdfasf
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 17, June 2010, 12:03 pm

How can a person live after killing an other human being (not to say eating him?) What does this act do to your mind and soul forever? Is surviving of such a value?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 19, June 2010, 5:45 pm

HEy -- SPANISH SUBTITLES FOR MY PARENTSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!

Subtitles would help to make it global -
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, June 2010, 12:30 am

This is stupid. This is how mass hypnotism works. Do you realy believe that there is no possible way to save the workers? To shout? To use the claxon? To derail the kart? This guy in his fancy suit imposes a problem which doesn't exist, makes you choose between two evils. Start thinking for yourself and come with an other solution. The propaganda this guy tells you is that you have to choose whom to kill. This is totally immoral. Before all, this 'teacher' has to rethink his own thinking patterns in the real world.

WARNING this dude is evil WARNING
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 20, June 2010, 1:04 am

As goes for the second story about the cabinet boy. Wether or not the story is real? Is the info on this story/lawcase somewhere altered or pimped? Again, the propaganda is to tell you that there are cases where murder might be justifiable... To the warmongars in the USA, and espacially to the canonsheeple; murder is murder. This 'theacher' argues about life and death. Your army is doctrinated into killing people all the time. This 'theacher' tries to make you loose morality.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 21, June 2010, 7:33 am

每个人都有权利去生存，或许也有高尚的人会去选择牺牲自己来救别人。但是帮不帮是别人的事，而不是说你能去选择。你可以选择牺牲自己帮助别人，但你不可以以牺牲别人的生命为代价来去帮助其他的人。每个人都没有权利去决定别人的生和死。同样是电车去撞人5比1这个比例，当我是当事者去选择时我会选择救5个人。因为这是关于夺取一个人的权利还是5个人的权利的问题。而作为旁观者我没有权利去推下那个胖子来救那5个人。那如果你和那个胖子无论谁跳下都能救这几个人。你会选择跳下去吗？如果你自己都不跳的话，还有什么权利去推下那个胖子，推下他你就高尚了。这不是很好笑吗！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 22, June 2010, 9:01 am

竟然能看到中文。。看了之后更迷糊了。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 24, June 2010, 3:33 am

关键是他们杀的是儿童，在道德上不容易使人接受。
what if there's not the kid be killed，what if a man？
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 26, June 2010, 11:46 pm

I thought the problem is whether the people who die is in a danger。In the case of track worker,a worker on another track was in a danger,but a fat man on the bridge wasn't.So it was more right to turn the train to another track rather than push the fat man down the track.In the case of a doctor,a patient who been seriously injured is in danger but a healthy man is not.If people is in danger,he will die or he won't die both are probabe,we just make the choice instead of the god,a man on track may be crashed,but god make the train on another tracker,he didn't know he is safe,but the dirver changed the choice of god,but the fat man on the bridge,he should be safe,he isn't in a small probability dangerous event,so pushing him down is immoral.

And the case of eat a boy,he is the most likely to die.The other three just make a choice instead of god.If their is another little ship driving past,the man on the ship is in a good condition,four man kill him and eat him,this is is immoral.

sorry for my poor english .

leokan at Xiamen University
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 29, June 2010, 7:50 pm

Society is governed by a set of collectively accepted "code of conduct" which tells us that murder is wrong (not just in the eye of law but in the eye of society), for example, and allows society to punish the perpetrators. This code of conduct is accepted because it enables society to function, without which there will be anarchy and chaos (harking back to Hobbesian idea of a life which is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"). But in a way, it also takes away the "right" of the individual to do as he/she pleases, for the greater good. The code of conduct then is, in fact, for the good of the greatest number of people (consequential morality). But because it is accepted by society over time, the code of conduct becomes a duty and obligation in its very act. Therefore, what is "consequential" morality becomes also "categorical" morality.

When that code of conduct is bent under certain extenuating circumstances, like in the case of R v Dudley and Stevens, do we not also challenge the even "higher" consequential morality? And if more "extenuating circumstances" are added to it all the time as a justification (some of these justifications we have seen used for the more gruesome acts of crime against humanity that we have seen) to bend the code of conduct, is there not a risk that the publicly accepted code of conduct is at risk of collapsing over time?

My 2 cents' worth.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, July 2010, 8:34 pm

Late in the Vinyl afternoon, the girls headed flex back to the flex banner village. Pelican Girl was tarpaulin tired and walked slowly mesh behind the Snipe sisters. Too busy talking to one way vision notice, the Snipe sisters got blockout further ahead until they disappeared out of site around a bend pvc fabric in the trail.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 2, July 2010, 8:35 pm

Late in the [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com]Vinyl[/url] afternoon, the girls headed [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com]flex[/url] back to the [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com]flex banner[/url] village. Pelican Girl was [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com]tarpaulin[/url] tired and walked slowly [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com/about.html]mesh[/url] behind the Snipe sisters. Too busy talking to [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com/about.html]one way vision[/url] notice, the Snipe sisters got [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com/flex.html]blockout[/url] further ahead until they disappeared out of site around a bend [url=http://www.hdl-flex.com/flex.html]pvc fabric[/url] in the trail.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 4, July 2010, 12:41 pm

I took a similar class with Prof. Alan Strudler. My response, after a whole semester of debate, is simply that:

"Categorical" morality, in many cases, is a result of a higher order "consequentialism". The difference is in the time horizon. In the short-term, killing one (fat man, patient, or the cabin boy) to save many may seems to produce greater utility. In the long-term, however, the lack of respect for human lives could degrade the moral fabric of our society -- resulting in chaos and anarchy. Evolution would ultimately favor the species -- that is, us homo sapiens -- that have a respect for the sanctity of life. "Murder is ALWAYS wrong" is utilitarian and almost certainly a strictly dominant strategy.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 10, July 2010, 9:17 am

真的是这样的吗?从问题的一开始就有问题
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 14, July 2010, 8:04 am

38:30左邊那個女生好正，這是我把12集全看完的原因。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 1, August 2010, 10:36 pm

The crew boy was never in a position of power. The captain and the others were his superiors. They had an obligation to defend and protect the less influential and knowledgeable youngster; remember he drank sea water!

The professor offered an altered view, I have mines. What if instead of being a crew boat boy he was a father and the other three were his wife and two young children, a boy and a girl?! What if as a father he gave himself so that his family would survive. Are they wrong to eat? Now is it morally wrong? Who's to say all "utilities of satisfaction weren't met?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 13, August 2010, 8:29 am

Maybe it just starts with the gut feeling. If you can feel it's wrong (in the body) then it IS wrong! In both these cases that's the case, with me anyway. It gets much more complicated if you have to choose between two wrongs.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 25, August 2010, 8:34 am

right
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 2, September 2010, 12:40 am

greet
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 5, September 2010, 9:46 am

??
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 6, September 2010, 11:22 am

personally, (just in my mind)
no matter any reasons, taking one's life is wrong.
BUT.
for our society,
I think I have to say I agree in taking innocent life to prevent bigger harm or torture is nececcery.

ironic thinking in ironic world. (and English)
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 13, September 2010, 11:43 am

I think the only reply that mattered here was the one in the early part of this thread.
The flaw of the subject is that it is based on ASSUMED results.
It's like asking the captain "Hey captain is it just to kill the boy given that we would die if we didn't and that the three of us would live if we did?"
In the real world, there is no IF in the face of murder or the act of killing someone. The question should stop at the predicate "to kill the boy". "Hey captain, is it just to kill the boy?" That's it.
The theoretical answer to the theoretical first question would be a yes for me. But two things...First, it is absurd to put an answer to a theoretical question into a non-theoretical real-life context (that's why i never answer theoretical questions). Second, in the real world there is no "GIVEN THAT" or "If past form of the verb". In the real world, we are confronted with situations that involves an uncertain future (since when did future become certain?).
And the jury and all that jazz feasted over the sensational trans-Atlantic voyage tragedy. And they may have been swayed or at least affected by the defense's appeal on the good results that followed the murder of the boy. But when we try the accused, we try him for an act regardless of it's benefits. Murder is voluntarily ridding an individual of his fundamental right to life. It doesn't matter whether murder could bring about the "most enlightened" and the "justest" President of the US who eventually would make this world an Earthly paradise. Those benefits come after the murder. At the time the murder was committed or was being committed "no one knew what the future would look like". Secondly, why was the birth of the President and Paradise an immediate result of the murder? In between, there are other factors that made the realization of The President and Paradise possible. without these other factors, The Good "Utilitarian" Results wouldn't have come about. And looking at the other side of the coin, there could have been other factors too that could have stopped the Becoming of The Utilitarian Results.
If the FUTURE utilitarian result is your basis for exonerating Dudley and Stephens, then try to put yourself in Dudley's shoes and ask yourself "Am I sure of the future that I assume would come about after I killed this dying orphan?"
Murder is murder and it is wrong because, you are violating the fundamental inalienable rights of an individual. One's rights stop when/where another's start. So killing in self defense in not wrong and is not murder.
Torturing is wrong because again it is founded on assumed results.

I've got two principles behind this stance: One, G.E. Moore's Universalizability principle and (two) the belief that established and defined crimes are wrong INTRINSICALLY (based on the belief that we have FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS).

On the trolley scenario:
a quick one.
First, i'll use my "Are you sure of the future safety of the five workers if you killed the poor one"
Second is the word SAVE. You save someone who is BOUND to die.
Letting the trolley crush them is not killing them, because they were BOUND to die. on the other hand, if you saved them, the poor one, WHO WAS NOT BOUND TO DIE, dies. and that's culpable act of murder. You decided that he die. Having the other five die is not deciding that they die...they were BOUND to die.

It's my first time to view this site and I was surprised at how Harvardians answer questions under pressure.

--a dropout Philosophy student from a university in the Philippines
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 13, September 2010, 12:01 pm

I'll take my second class tomorrow. I was gonna add my thoughts on consent and the lottery thing but it's late in the Philippines now and I've got an early day tomorrow.

I love this forum. It rekindled the sick, silly, little Socrates in me again.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 17, September 2010, 4:31 am

in the boatboy story，a consent means the boatboy gives up his fundamental rights,as the right to live in the world.then the issue turn to the boy give up his life，the others who killed him is just helping him，they are legal.this is the same with helping others to suicide.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 18, September 2010, 4:37 pm

To a great extent justice and morality are constructs of society and are therefore relative to the security that a particular society is able to offer. By this I mean that if the protections of living in a society reduce cannibalism to being an unnecessary option then it is both ethically and morally wrong. However, when outside of the provisions of society (where cannibalism is no longer an unnecessary option but a presumed necessity of life) questions of ethics and morality are asked from a different sphere of existence. In this different sphere, adhering to normal moral restraints would lead to almost certain suffering or death. In this case 'everyday' morals are rendered not merely impractical but unjust and even immoral by there presumed outcome.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Friday 24, September 2010, 1:55 pm

I am a student from Pakistan. When my teacher put forward this question I decided to go with hitting the 5 because I felt that by turning and deciding to hit the one worker I would imply that I think his life is less valuable than the life of the other 5 and in my opinion i feel that we do not have the right to make such a decision
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 25, September 2010, 2:00 am

Ugg Boots Classic Cardy
Ugg Boots Classic Short
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Saturday 25, September 2010, 2:02 am

[url=http://www.vibramfivefingersitaly.com/Vibram-Five-Fingers-Bikila.html]Vibram Five Fingers Bikila[/url]
[url=http://www.vibramfivefingersitaly.com/Vibram-Five-Fingers-Flow.html]Vibram Five Fingers Flow[/url]
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 27, September 2010, 2:24 am

What may be both interesting and relevant to the argument is the question of where we draw our moral lines.

What if, for example, the cabin boy was substituted for a dangerous killer or convicted terrorist being transported in chains? Or a severely brain-damaged person without the ability to give consent but equally would be unable to fend for himself or survive without complete assistance from the others?

The professor's questions are not meant to stimulate argument around substance or circumstance (whether a ship will come or one will die before the others) but rather a focus on the MORAL choices surrounding these scenarios. In other words, what factors influence our personal versions of morality. Interesting and sometimes difficult to answer..
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Tuesday 28, September 2010, 5:50 pm

Does anybody know how to get the subtitle of this lecture?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 3, October 2010, 3:13 pm

I think that not agreeing to do enythig possible in order to survive is what differences us from animals and beasts. They can't think but we csn. There are actions that should not be committed anyway and no matter how severe the situation is. When a person does something outrageous and provocative that was never done before or unaccepable in the company he/she is something like giving permission for others to immitate them.
A man can not count on his judgement but must learn moral codes that were dictated to him. Elsewhere is will be morl to take drugs go to "escorting" services. It will be moral to kill someone's grandmother in order to donate the rent to kids who have cancer. There ought to be laws. Unbreakable and solid. No for murdering, no for stealing, no for fornicating. As a beliving person I think the highest moral is the ten commandments and the bible. Unbribed, solid rules that dictates us how to behave

Afik.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 6, October 2010, 8:28 pm

Now nike air max shoes are becoming more and more popular all over the world.It not only is the sneakers of consolidating high-tech sporting but also emphasizing the fashionable outer designs, is working consquently together with fashion icons worldwide.We offer great products such as air max 90, air max 91, air max 95, air max 2009, air max 2010, air max 2011, air max 24-7,air max TN,air max LTD, air max classic BW,nike dunk sb shoes and more, they are on hot sale.Our purpose is to offer a low cost alternative to high designer shoes prices. We listen to our customers, adding the latest men's and women's trendy styles.
Find cheap nike air max shoes and buy nike air max online, www.pickreplica.com.It is your best choice. We can provide Fashion design and High quality nike shoes for you.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 6, October 2010, 10:59 pm

先生您好！首先请您原谅我是一名高中生不能用英语留言。您在课中提及一个问题，十九世纪英国玛格丽特号船上人吃人事件，是否触犯了道德，法律。我想说说我的荒谬的想法：我觉得他们没有错！也很理智！人类文明的发展，是物质发展的结果。但是人类的文明发展，永远不能掩盖、代替人类的最初的本性！远古的人类文明是最初的文明。生存，生存下去就是文明。而现在时时刻刻社会中都在上演着不同角色的弱肉强食、竞争。所以说，他们没错，他们的生存权利尚不掌握在自己手中，何谈法律，文明？人类最的本性是不受意识和文明制约的。当生存下去的权利都受到威胁时，求生的本性不受制约。潜力的激发有时是好的，有时是本性。
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 7, October 2010, 6:25 am

生存下去的权利受到威胁时就应该威胁别人的生存权利？

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 7, October 2010, 7:53 am

说起来似乎很不合情理！原因就是您还没真正受到威胁，您的生活还相对安逸！
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 7, October 2010, 8:43 pm

christian dior vibram five fingers ugg boots winter boots ugg boots uggs 2 dior sunglasses fivefingers uggs outlet cheap uggs сапоги ugg ugg Australia купить 3 dior handbags vibram shoes uggs online обувь Ugg сапоги ugg ugg seline 4 dior homme five finger shoes sheepskin ugg boots угги интернет магазин обувь Ugg ugg sandals 5 dior shoes vibram snow boots uggs ugg australia угги uggs online 6 christian dior sunglasses vibram fivefinger shoes ugg boots ugg australia угги интернет магазин Dior homme jeans 7 dior vibram five finger shoes vibram fivefingers cheap ugg boots угги ugg boots 8 угги ugg australia ugg boots cheap ugg boots ugg boots ugg ultra
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 10, October 2010, 6:22 am

Utilitarian thinking, in my opinion can not be applied stricto sensu to a justice or ethical field simply because human life (and its potential) is of equal value in any given situation, even extreme situations like this one. If you admit that in cases of extreme hunger reason is no longer a first decider you can spare someone's life, without the possibility to cancel a moral fault. Good and evil are relative in any societies: in ancient cultures - f.e. the Pharaoh was allowed to create his offspring by its union with an immediate blood relative (a fact which at present is not morally tolerated); cannibalism is another example in witch the same present moral view is available. The real question is "who is to decide a certain punishment for these individuals that survived by killing another, in these particular conditions in witch they have returned to the society?". Is it possible to separate the moral fault from the moral society in witch this crime is no longer tolerated and absolve these men judging by the circumstances? I think not. Why? Because moral values are related to intrinsic motivation and understanding, while punishing a crime is at most a consequence of someone's free will. If the crime scene is pure madness and the survivors choose to go on with their lives and without guilt or remorse they should choose also to not return home. If they return, whether or not they feel guilty, they have to be prepared to embrace any social punishment or stigmata. So, I believe this is not a debate of "they made a right thing or not, they should be punished or not".. Free will is natural, while the psychopaths are tolerated only in mental institutions. This tells us that society expects some of us to go wrong and the majority to pass the test. Our society is just one of the civilization's experiments. And we know the rules, we live by them. We have already given up our freedom by choosing to live in this way. "I am a good citizen, because I was always satisfied with the condition in witch I was" (Montesquieu). Regarding the hypothesis of an "consented act" of those three, the scene does not look less guilty, it only indicates a diffusion of responsibility between the three. It mean that this is also a false problem. The crime is still there.

Andreea Ursache
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 10, October 2010, 1:22 pm

Someone asked me his question before, they were very religious and from very respected US university (I am English), they went, “Alex how can you not believe in morals?”
My reply was this. “Because morals are looking for the right way to act and in our world, there is never a conclusively right way to act, which why all act so different.”
She then went. “Well what do in this situation....etc ”
This is when I explained I have no answer, first because I have no idea what I would do in heat of the moment for such a serious situation and as lord Styln once said. “Judging things in cold light of court room is very different to judging it in heat of moment.”
-But more than that, there is no right answer here for number of reasons:-
1=We don’t know enough about our facts, we are only taking very arbitrary view of “direct” cause and effect without obversing further consequences of our actions killing the 1 to save the 5, works as nice and simple maths sum at lest, but humans are not so unproblematic and straightforward as primary school maths, sadly.
-What if the 5 men were terrorists planting a bomb and by saving them, you allowed them to blow up another train later, killing 50 people, suddenly our maths is all out of proportion here, but at same time something never be foreseeable as direct result of your split second actions
-Taking case 2, what happens is fat man is doctor and by killing him you allow his 5 patients to go untreated, causing death of 6 people.

=Now as reading this, probably thinking, but your overcomplicating the question, it was never meant to be taken in such a literal and real world way, which is true, but this is only first problem of answer which leads onto part 2 below:-

2=If we look at our facts limited as they are or expanded as above, then still the answer does not come, because lets say our 5 train workers are planning terrorism and our fat man is a doctor, who are we to judge their right to live and their value as people, whether we take a straight forward extrinsic 5 is better than 1 approach or complicate it, to look at it from more Thomas Aquinas view of intrsinc value, it is still height of arrogance to make ourselves judge jury and executor, because who are we to take our personal and subjective views of right and wrong and then use those views to justify the life and death of others, no matter how convinced we are by our own self-righteousness convictions. We have no way to make our opinions of morality more than that, meaning to use it to justify anything is weak, aspecially something which most of us see as unmoral, but even if we could prove by some level of objective testing that right and wrong exist beyond our own personal made up views of then, by using those morals, in this way, probably going to break them anyway, which at best makes us bad as those we judge and at worst, makes us worse than them.

=Now this may this may lead some to conclude, well none action best then, as we are not getting involved and so fate is just following course as will and we merely obverses, if go on case two where could probably work, still have problem that our own negative action, is still an empathetic action in that helps cause a result by its own omission to act and so we are still making an action in our none actions, because we are openly letting result occur knowing full well results. This means we are still culpable to its results, because we cannot just remove ourselves of responsibility in this way, as we did knowing its results would occur as would, which is simply to cynical to be allowed because you “knew” result and let it happen anyway, and only did said action in order to try and detach self from it.
-Result, there is no right answer to question, all end up doing is our panic induced actions and history will judge on our results whatever they maybe.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Monday 11, October 2010, 11:35 am

Murder is murder. I can't agree more of this opinion.No one has the power to encroach on others' right.Every one is fair.
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 28, October 2010, 12:47 am

supposing you were the one on the boat ,and you were starve to death.what would you do ? although everyone is fair,but the deaire to life is so strong that you had to to do it .it is only but one choice .

(Unregistered) said:

Wednesday 20, October 2010, 2:53 am

看不
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 24, October 2010, 2:33 am

I want to know more.
thank you !
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 24, October 2010, 7:18 am

Wonderful!
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 28, October 2010, 12:53 am

avery meal we had always contain the dead body of other things ,such as the meal,the plants.if all life are equal ,those things are not bourn to eat,thay also have their rights,here is a question ,why we have the right to kill them?
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Sunday 7, November 2010, 1:58 pm

Yes let me add my thoughts too regarding the case of cannibalism... at around 49:50 when the student with the glasses speaks. I would have said "No I don't think Jeremy Bentham is wrong, I think he is immoral :P"
reply

(Unregistered) said:

Thursday 18, November 2010, 4:54 pm

Under all the discussion in this video is the assumption that death is the worst thing that can happen. What if cannibalism was worse than death? What if death isn't really the end and there is an afterlife? The ideas of God, heaven and hell really change the argument, and I think they were almost totally ignored in the classroom discussion.
reply

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Comments (0)

Add Your Thoughts

please enter the letters and or numbers contained in the above image

Post Comment

Canadian pharmacy viagra
cialis online

Join the Conversation

Public Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

How to create a sane society. Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

U.S. Courts Library Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Hull CONLAW group Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Yuanchao Chi Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

SCCS Philosophy Discussion Circle

Add Your Thoughts

Synopsis

Voice Your Opinion

Pop Quiz

Readings

Discussion Guides

Up Next