Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER" | Summary and Q&A

TL;DR

In a thought-provoking discussion, students grapple with the ethical dilemma of sacrificing one person to save others, and explore different moral principles such as consequentialism, categorical moral reasoning, and the importance of consent.

Key Insights

• 🙅 The majority of participants believe that sacrificing one person to save others is morally justified due to the greater good it achieves.
• 🧑 Participants in the minority argue that sacrificing one person is always morally wrong, equating it to genocide or totalitarianism.
• 🤽 Consent plays a significant role in determining whether an act is morally permissible or not, with some participants believing it can justify sacrificing one person.

Transcript

Funding for this program is provided by: Additional funding provided by This is a course about Justice and we begin with a story suppose you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurdling down the track at sixty miles an hour and at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track you tried to stop but you can't y... Read More

Questions & Answers

Q: What is consequentialist moral reasoning?

Consequentialist moral reasoning is a theory that believes the morality of an act depends on its consequences. In this context, it suggests that it is better to sacrifice one life to save five.

Q: What is categorical moral reasoning?

Categorical moral reasoning argues that certain acts are inherently wrong regardless of their consequences. It emphasizes absolute moral requirements and duties.

Q: Does consent make a moral difference in sacrificing one person to save others?

Some participants argue that consent from the person being sacrificed would justify the act. However, others assert that even with consent, it is still morally wrong, as murder is always categorically wrong.

Q: How does this discussion relate to ethical philosophy?

The discussion touches upon various ethical theories, including consequentialism and categorical moral reasoning. It raises questions about the importance of consent and the underlying principles of morality.

Summary

This video discusses the moral dilemmas surrounding the trolley car problem and the case of Dudley and Stephens. These scenarios raise questions about the ethics of consequentialist moral reasoning and categorical moral reasoning. The video introduces the philosophy of utilitarianism by Jeremy Bentham, which argues for maximizing utility and happiness. The case of Dudley and Stephens highlights the issues of consent, justifications based on dire circumstances, and the categorical wrongness of certain actions.

Questions & Answers

Q: What is the trolley car problem?

The trolley car problem presents a scenario where a driver must choose between letting a trolley car hit five workers on the track or redirecting the trolley car to hit one worker on a different track. The question is whether it is morally right to sacrifice one life to save five.

Q: Why do some people believe it is morally right to redirect the trolley car?

Some people argue that it is morally right to redirect the trolley car because it saves more lives. They believe that sacrificing one life to save five is the outcome that maximizes utility and happiness.

Q: How does the 9/11 example relate to the trolley car problem?

The 9/11 example is brought up to support the argument that sacrificing one life to save many is sometimes seen as morally right. Just as some people view the individuals who flew the plane into a field as heroes for potentially saving more lives in big buildings, they would make the same argument in the trolley car scenario.

Q: What is the argument against redirecting the trolley car?

Some people believe that sacrificing one life to save many is morally wrong because it violates certain categorical moral principles. They argue that it is inherently unjust to intentionally cause harm to an innocent person, even if it leads to the greater good.

Q: How does the scenario change when the person making the decision is an onlooker?

The scenario changes when the person is an onlooker instead of the trolley car driver. In this case, most people hesitate to push a fat man over the bridge to save five lives, even though it aligns with the consequentialist principle of sacrificing one for many. This raises the question of why the majority's judgment differs between the two scenarios.

Q: Why do some people believe it is morally wrong to push the fat man over the bridge?

Some people argue that pushing the fat man over the bridge is morally wrong because it involves an active choice to cause harm to an innocent person. They view this as different from the trolley car scenario where the driver is already involved in the situation.

Q: How do consequentialist and categorical moral principles differ?

Consequentialist moral principles focus on the consequences of an action, aiming to maximize utility and happiness. Categorical moral principles, on the other hand, emphasize absolute moral requirements and duties, regardless of the consequences. The trolley car scenarios highlight the clash between these two approaches.

Q: What is the philosophy of utilitarianism?

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory introduced by Jeremy Bentham. It argues that the right thing to do is to maximize utility, which refers to the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering. It posits that the greatest good for the greatest number should guide moral decision-making.

Q: What is the case of Dudley and Stephens?

The case of Dudley and Stephens involves a real-life scenario where a shipwrecked crew was stranded in a lifeboat without food or water. After several days, they resorted to killing and consuming a cabin boy in order to survive. They were later rescued but faced legal consequences for their actions.

Q: How did people respond to the moral dilemma presented in the case of Dudley and Stephens?

Most people believe that what Dudley and Stephens did was morally wrong. Some argue that murder is murder and should never be justified, regardless of the dire circumstances. Others find the lack of consent and absence of remorse as compelling reasons for their conviction.

Takeaways

This video explores the moral dilemmas of sacrificing one life to save many and the clash between consequentialist and categorical moral principles. It introduces utilitarianism as a consequentialist moral theory and the case of Dudley and Stephens to illustrate these ethical debates. The arguments presented raise philosophical questions about the role of consent, the importance of fair procedures, and the categorical wrongness of certain acts. The video emphasizes the personal and political risks that come with engaging in moral reflection, as well as the potential for moral growth and self-discovery through philosophy.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• A trolley car driver faces a difficult choice: crash into five workers or switch tracks and kill one worker. The majority of participants would choose to switch tracks, believing it is better to kill one person than five.

• Participants in the minority argue that sacrificing one person is morally wrong, equating it to genocide or totalitarianism.

• Another scenario poses the question of whether pushing a fat man off a bridge to save five workers is morally justified. Most participants would not push the man due to a belief in categorical moral principles.

• The discussion explores the concepts of consequentialist moral reasoning, which focuses on the consequences of an act, and categorical moral reasoning, which considers the intrinsic quality of an act.