Part 1 - The Moral Side of Murder: If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing, even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. Part 2 - The Case for Cannibalism: Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive.
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:
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?
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:
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:
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?
It is unsettling to see about 20% in the class felt that it was OK to kill the cabin boy. reply
(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
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.
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,
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
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿