0:00:04.200,0:00:08.240
Funding for this program is provided by:

0:00:08.240,0:00:15.240
Additional funding provided by

0:00:33.509,0:00:37.750
This is a course about Justice and we begin with a story

0:00:37.750,0:00:40.179
suppose you're the driver of a trolley car,

0:00:40.179,0:00:44.640
and your trolley car is hurdling down the track at sixty miles an hour

0:00:44.640,0:00:49.390
and at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track

0:00:49.390,0:00:51.799
you tried to stop but you can't

0:00:51.799,0:00:53.829
your brakes don't work

0:00:53.829,0:00:56.780
you feel desperate because you know

0:00:56.780,0:00:59.590
that if you crash into these five workers

0:00:59.590,0:01:01.490
they will all die

0:01:01.490,0:01:05.079
let's assume you know that for sure

0:01:05.079,0:01:07.420
and so you feel helpless

0:01:07.420,0:01:09.450
until you notice that there is

0:01:09.450,0:01:11.290
off to the right

0:01:11.290,0:01:13.170
a side track

0:01:13.170,0:01:15.579
at the end of that track

0:01:15.579,0:01:17.390
there's one worker

0:01:17.390,0:01:19.079
working on track

0:01:19.079,0:01:21.368
you're steering wheel works

0:01:21.368,0:01:23.030
so you can

0:01:23.030,0:01:26.010
turn the trolley car if you want to

0:01:26.010,0:01:28.840
onto this side track

0:01:28.840,0:01:30.399
killing the one

0:01:30.399,0:01:33.269
but sparing the five.

0:01:33.269,0:01:36.109
Here's our first question

0:01:36.109,0:01:38.819
what's the right thing to do?

0:01:38.819,0:01:40.478
What would you do?

0:01:40.478,0:01:42.560
Let's take a poll,

0:01:42.560,0:01:45.180
how many

0:01:45.180,0:01:52.020
would turn the trolley car onto the side track?

0:01:52.019,0:01:53.530
How many wouldn't?

0:01:53.530,0:01:58.180
How many would go straight ahead

0:01:58.180,0:02:04.050
keep your hands up, those of you who'd go straight ahead.

0:02:04.049,0:02:08.378
A handful of people would, the vast majority would turn

0:02:08.378,0:02:09.878
let's hear first

0:02:09.878,0:02:14.149
now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think

0:02:14.149,0:02:19.799
it's the right thing to do. Let's begin with those in the majority, who would turn

0:02:19.799,0:02:22.058
to go onto side track?

0:02:22.058,0:02:23.669
Why would you do it,

0:02:23.669,0:02:25.808
what would be your reason?

0:02:25.808,0:02:30.188
Who's willing to volunteer a reason?

0:02:30.188,0:02:32.218
Go ahead, stand up.

0:02:32.218,0:02:39.218
Because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead.

0:02:39.579,0:02:42.239
it wouldn't be right to kill five

0:02:42.239,0:02:47.069
if you could kill one person instead

0:02:47.068,0:02:48.528
that's a good reason

0:02:48.528,0:02:52.959
that's a good reason

0:02:52.959,0:02:53.778
who else?

0:02:53.778,0:02:56.658
does everybody agree with that

0:02:56.658,0:03:01.218
reason? go ahead.

0:03:01.218,0:03:03.620
Well I was thinking it was the same reason it was on

0:03:03.620,0:03:05.459
9/11 we regard the people who flew the plane

0:03:05.459,0:03:08.009
who flew the plane into the

0:03:08.008,0:03:09.528
Pennsylvania field as heroes

0:03:09.528,0:03:11.718
because they chose to kill the people on the plane

0:03:11.718,0:03:14.418
and not kill more people

0:03:14.419,0:03:16.109
in big buildings.

0:03:16.109,0:03:19.260
So the principle there was the same on 9/11

0:03:19.259,0:03:21.638
it's tragic circumstance,

0:03:21.639,0:03:25.359
but better to kill one so that five can live

0:03:25.359,0:03:30.748
is that the reason most of you have, those of you who would turn, yes?

0:03:30.748,0:03:32.628
Let's hear now

0:03:32.628,0:03:33.628
from

0:03:33.628,0:03:35.508
those in the minority

0:03:35.508,0:03:40.558
those who wouldn't turn.

0:03:40.558,0:03:45.709
Well I think that same type of mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism

0:03:45.468,0:03:50.358
in order to save one type of race you wipe out the other.

0:03:50.359,0:03:53.278
so what would you do in this case? You would

0:03:53.278,0:03:55.378
to avoid

0:03:55.378,0:03:57.798
the horrors of genocide

0:03:57.799,0:04:03.989
you would crash into the five and kill them?

0:04:03.989,0:04:07.628
Presumably yes.

0:04:07.628,0:04:09.929
okay who else?

0:04:09.930,0:04:14.498
That's a brave answer, thank you.

0:04:14.498,0:04:16.079
Let's consider another

0:04:16.978,0:04:20.238
trolley car case

0:04:20.238,0:04:21.688
and see

0:04:21.689,0:04:24.189
whether

0:04:24.189,0:04:27.429
those of you in the majority

0:04:27.428,0:04:30.989
want to adhere to the principle,

0:04:30.990,0:04:33.500
better that one should die so that five should live.

0:04:33.500,0:04:38.528
This time you're not the driver of the trolley car, you're an onlooker

0:04:38.528,0:04:42.678
standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track

0:04:42.678,0:04:45.658
and down the track comes a trolley car

0:04:45.658,0:04:49.620
at the end of the track are five workers

0:04:49.620,0:04:51.739
the brakes don't work

0:04:51.738,0:04:55.948
the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them

0:04:55.949,0:04:57.218
and now

0:04:57.218,0:04:58.788
you're not the driver

0:04:58.788,0:05:01.308
you really feel helpless

0:05:01.309,0:05:03.259
until you notice

0:05:03.259,0:05:06.879
standing next to you

0:05:06.879,0:05:08.639
leaning over

0:05:08.639,0:05:09.889
the bridge

0:05:09.889,0:05:16.889
is it very fat man.

0:05:17.218,0:05:20.178
And you could

0:05:20.178,0:05:22.668
give him a shove

0:05:22.668,0:05:24.728
he would fall over the bridge

0:05:24.728,0:05:27.949
onto the track

0:05:27.949,0:05:29.538
right in the way of

0:05:29.538,0:05:32.199
the trolley car

0:05:32.199,0:05:33.419
he would die

0:05:33.418,0:05:38.930
but he would spare the five.

0:05:38.930,0:05:41.108
Now, how many would push

0:05:41.108,0:05:48.089
the fat man over the bridge? Raise your hand.

0:05:48.089,0:05:51.198
How many wouldn't?

0:05:51.199,0:05:54.069
Most people wouldn't.

0:05:54.069,0:05:55.789
Here's the obvious question,

0:05:55.788,0:05:56.878
what became

0:05:56.879,0:06:00.169
of the principle

0:06:00.168,0:06:05.109
better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one, what became of the principal

0:06:05.110,0:06:07.490
that almost everyone endorsed

0:06:07.490,0:06:09.240
in the first case

0:06:09.240,0:06:12.809
I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both

0:06:12.809,0:06:13.580
cases is

0:06:13.579,0:06:17.758
how do you explain the difference between the two?

0:06:17.759,0:06:21.860
The second one I guess involves an active choice of

0:06:21.860,0:06:22.509
pushing a person

0:06:22.509,0:06:24.279
and down which

0:06:24.279,0:06:25.198
I guess that

0:06:25.199,0:06:29.830
that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all

0:06:29.829,0:06:31.269
and so

0:06:31.269,0:06:33.769
to choose on his behalf I guess

0:06:33.769,0:06:36.769
to

0:06:36.769,0:06:39.990
involve him in something that he otherwise would have this escaped is

0:06:39.990,0:06:41.788
I guess more than

0:06:41.788,0:06:43.620
what you have in the first case where

0:06:43.620,0:06:45.968
the three parties, the driver and

0:06:45.968,0:06:47.668
the two sets of workers are

0:06:47.668,0:06:50.598
already I guess in this situation.

0:06:50.598,0:06:55.108
but the guy working, the one on the track off to the side

0:06:55.108,0:07:02.068
he didn't choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat guy did, did he?

0:07:02.069,0:07:05.420
That's true, but he was on the tracks.

0:07:05.399,0:07:10.438
this guy was on the bridge.

0:07:10.439,0:07:13.550
Go ahead, you can come back if you want.

0:07:13.550,0:07:15.329
Alright, it's a hard question

0:07:15.329,0:07:18.658
but you did well you did very well it's a hard question.

0:07:19.629,0:07:21.180
who else

0:07:21.180,0:07:22.598
can

0:07:22.598,0:07:26.028
find a way of reconciling

0:07:26.028,0:07:30.158
the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes?

0:07:30.158,0:07:31.550
Well I guess

0:07:31.550,0:07:32.540
in the first case where

0:07:32.540,0:07:35.179
you have the one worker and the five

0:07:35.178,0:07:37.429
it's a choice between those two, and you have to

0:07:37.430,0:07:41.218
make a certain choice and people are going to die because of the trolley car

0:07:41.218,0:07:45.029
not necessarily because of your direct actions. The trolley car is a runway,

0:07:45.029,0:07:48.209
thing and you need to make in a split second choice

0:07:48.209,0:07:52.658
whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part

0:07:52.658,0:07:54.490
you have control over that

0:07:54.490,0:07:57.278
whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.

0:07:57.278,0:08:00.089
So I think that it's a slightly different situation.

0:08:00.089,0:08:04.359
Alright who has a reply? Is that, who has a reply to that? no that was good, who has a way

0:08:04.360,0:08:06.319
who wants to reply?

0:08:06.319,0:08:09.490
Is that a way out of this?

0:08:09.490,0:08:12.439
I don't think that's a very good reason because you choose

0:08:12.439,0:08:16.889
either way you have to choose who dies because you either choose to turn and kill a person

0:08:16.889,0:08:18.500
which is an act of conscious

0:08:18.500,0:08:19.718
thought to turn,

0:08:19.718,0:08:21.319
or you choose to push the fat man

0:08:21.319,0:08:23.609
over which is also an active

0:08:23.608,0:08:27.688
conscious action so either way you're making a choice.

0:08:27.689,0:08:29.729
Do you want to reply?

0:08:29.728,0:08:34.189
Well I'm not really sure that that's the case, it just still seems kind of different, the act of actually

0:08:34.190,0:08:38.230
pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing them,

0:08:38.230,0:08:42.600
you are actually killing him yourself, you're pushing him with your own hands you're pushing and

0:08:42.600,0:08:43.710
that's different

0:08:43.710,0:08:47.090
than steering something that is going to cause death

0:08:47.090,0:08:48.670
into another...you know

0:08:48.669,0:08:52.829
it doesn't really sound right saying it now when I'm up here.

0:08:52.830,0:08:54.740
No that's good, what's your name?

0:08:54.740,0:08:55.570
Andrew.

0:08:55.740,0:08:59.570
Andrew and let me ask you this question Andrew,

0:08:59.570,0:09:02.240
suppose

0:09:02.240,0:09:03.680
standing on the bridge

0:09:03.679,0:09:04.809
next to the fat man

0:09:04.809,0:09:07.849
I didn't have to push him, suppose he was standing

0:09:07.850,0:09:14.850
over a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that

0:09:17.450,0:09:18.690
would you turn it?

0:09:18.690,0:09:20.960
For some reason that still just seems more

0:09:20.960,0:09:24.129
more wrong.

0:09:24.129,0:09:30.350
I mean maybe if you just accidentally like leaned into this steering wheel or something like that

0:09:30.350,0:09:31.060
or but,

0:09:31.059,0:09:33.118
or say that the car is

0:09:33.119,0:09:37.850
hurdling towards a switch that will drop the trap

0:09:37.850,0:09:39.230
then I could agree with that.

0:09:39.850,0:09:42.230
Fair enough, it still seems

0:09:42.230,0:09:45.500
wrong in a way that it doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn, you say

0:09:45.500,0:09:50.419
An in another way, I mean in the first situation you're involved directly with the situation

0:09:50.419,0:09:52.449
in the second one you're an onlooker as well.

0:09:52.450,0:09:56.920
So you have the choice of becoming involved or not by pushing the fat man.

0:09:56.919,0:09:59.549
Let's forget for the moment about this case,

0:09:59.549,0:10:01.269
that's good,

0:10:01.269,0:10:06.460
but let's imagine a different case. This time your doctor in an emergency room

0:10:06.460,0:10:11.629
and six patients come to you

0:10:11.629,0:10:18.500
they've been in a terrible trolley car wreck

0:10:18.500,0:10:23.889
five of them sustained moderate injuries one is severely injured you could spend all day

0:10:23.889,0:10:27.720
caring for the one severely injured victim,

0:10:27.720,0:10:32.330
but in that time the five would die, or you could look after the five, restore them to health, but

0:10:32.330,0:10:35.490
during that time the one severely injured

0:10:35.490,0:10:36.470
person would die.

0:10:36.470,0:10:37.660
How many would save

0:10:37.659,0:10:39.539
the five

0:10:39.539,0:10:40.849
now as the doctor?

0:10:40.850,0:10:44.480
How many would save the one?

0:10:44.480,0:10:46.300
Very few people,

0:10:46.299,0:10:49.269
just a handful of people.

0:10:49.269,0:10:51.439
Same reason I assume,

0:10:51.440,0:10:55.570
one life versus five.

0:10:55.570,0:10:57.230
Now consider

0:10:57.230,0:10:59.070
another doctor case

0:10:59.070,0:11:02.080
this time you're a transplant surgeon

0:11:02.080,0:11:06.160
and you have five patients each in desperate need

0:11:06.159,0:11:09.639
of an organ transplant in order to survive

0:11:09.639,0:11:12.220
on needs a heart one a lung,

0:11:12.220,0:11:13.550
one a kidney,

0:11:13.549,0:11:15.089
one a liver

0:11:15.090,0:11:16.680
and the fifth

0:11:16.679,0:11:20.209
a pancreas.

0:11:20.210,0:11:22.780
And you have no organ donors

0:11:22.779,0:11:24.909
you are about to

0:11:24.909,0:11:27.649
see you them die

0:11:27.649,0:11:28.860
and then

0:11:28.860,0:11:30.649
it occurs to you

0:11:30.649,0:11:32.470
that in the next room

0:11:32.470,0:11:35.720
there's a healthy guy who came in for a checkup.

0:11:39.450,0:11:43.740
and he is

0:11:43.740,0:11:47.159
you like that

0:11:47.159,0:11:50.740
and he's taking a nap

0:11:53.269,0:11:56.769
you could go in very quietly

0:11:56.769,0:12:00.600
yank out the five organs, that person would die

0:12:00.600,0:12:03.170
but you can save the five.

0:12:03.169,0:12:10.169
How many would do it? Anyone?

0:12:10.389,0:12:17.389
How many? Put your hands up if you would do it.

0:12:18.100,0:12:21.840
Anyone in the balcony?

0:12:21.840,0:12:24.280
You would? Be careful don't lean over too much

0:12:26.269,0:12:29.340
How many wouldn't?

0:12:29.340,0:12:30.360
All right.

0:12:30.360,0:12:33.600
What do you say, speak up in the balcony, you who would

0:12:33.600,0:12:35.840
yank out the organs, why?

0:12:35.840,0:12:38.629
I'd actually like to explore slightly alternate

0:12:38.629,0:12:40.188
possibility of just taking the one

0:12:40.188,0:12:44.419
of the five he needs an organ who dies first

0:12:44.419,0:12:50.229
and using their four healthy organs to save the other four

0:12:50.230,0:12:54.639
That's a pretty good idea.

0:12:54.639,0:12:57.830
That's a great idea

0:12:57.830,0:13:00.160
except for the fact

0:13:00.159,0:13:06.159
that you just wrecked the philosophical point.

0:13:06.159,0:13:07.360
Let's step back

0:13:07.360,0:13:10.240
from these stories and these arguments

0:13:10.240,0:13:12.750
to notice a couple of things

0:13:12.750,0:13:17.809
about the way the arguments have began to unfold.

0:13:17.809,0:13:18.649
Certain

0:13:18.649,0:13:20.360
moral principles

0:13:20.360,0:13:23.340
have already begun to emerge

0:13:23.340,0:13:25.879
from the discussions we've had

0:13:25.879,0:13:27.570
and let's consider

0:13:27.570,0:13:29.740
what those moral principles

0:13:29.740,0:13:31.250
look like

0:13:31.250,0:13:35.710
the first moral principle that emerged from the discussion said

0:13:35.710,0:13:39.110
that the right thing to do the moral thing to do

0:13:39.110,0:13:43.139
depends on the consequences that will result

0:13:43.139,0:13:45.480
from your action

0:13:45.480,0:13:47.080
at the end of the day

0:13:47.080,0:13:49.250
better that five should live

0:13:49.250,0:13:52.320
even if one must die.

0:13:52.320,0:13:53.700
That's an example

0:13:53.700,0:13:56.280
of consequentialist

0:13:56.279,0:13:59.459
moral reasoning.

0:13:59.460,0:14:04.310
consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act. In the state of the

0:14:04.309,0:14:06.549
world that will result

0:14:06.549,0:14:09.049
from the thing you do

0:14:09.049,0:14:12.789
but then we went a little further, we considered those other cases

0:14:12.789,0:14:15.319
and people weren't so sure

0:14:15.320,0:14:17.300
about

0:14:17.299,0:14:20.529
consequentialist moral reasoning

0:14:20.529,0:14:22.419
when people hesitated

0:14:22.419,0:14:24.269
to push the fat man

0:14:24.269,0:14:25.789
over the bridge

0:14:25.789,0:14:28.639
or to yank out the organs of the innocent

0:14:28.639,0:14:29.750
patient

0:14:29.750,0:14:32.259
people gestured towards

0:14:32.259,0:14:34.259
reasons

0:14:34.259,0:14:35.379
having to do

0:14:35.379,0:14:37.250
with the intrinsic

0:14:37.250,0:14:39.230
quality of the act

0:14:39.230,0:14:40.690
itself.

0:14:40.690,0:14:42.770
Consequences be what they may.

0:14:42.769,0:14:45.179
People were reluctant

0:14:45.179,0:14:47.819
people thought it was just wrong

0:14:47.820,0:14:49.480
categorically wrong

0:14:49.480,0:14:50.500
to kill

0:14:50.500,0:14:51.408
a person

0:14:51.408,0:14:53.509
an innocent person

0:14:53.509,0:14:54.689
even for the sake

0:14:54.690,0:14:55.819
of saving

0:14:55.818,0:14:58.500
five lives, at least these people thought that

0:14:58.500,0:15:00.610
in the second

0:15:00.610,0:15:05.120
version of each story we reconsidered

0:15:05.120,0:15:06.519
so this points

0:15:06.519,0:15:09.539
a second

0:15:09.539,0:15:10.689
categorical

0:15:10.690,0:15:12.660
way

0:15:12.659,0:15:14.679
of thinking about

0:15:14.679,0:15:16.429
moral reasoning

0:15:16.429,0:15:22.429
categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements in

0:15:22.429,0:15:24.439
certain categorical duties and rights

0:15:24.440,0:15:27.440
regardless of the consequences.

0:15:27.440,0:15:29.230
We're going to explore

0:15:29.230,0:15:33.070
in the days and weeks to come the contrast between

0:15:33.070,0:15:36.540
consequentialist and categorical moral principles.

0:15:36.539,0:15:38.370
The most influential

0:15:38.370,0:15:40.419
example of

0:15:40.419,0:15:45.919
consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by

0:15:45.919,0:15:51.099
Jeremy Bentham, the eighteenth century English political philosopher.

0:15:51.100,0:15:54.139
The most important

0:15:54.139,0:15:56.850
philosopher of categorical moral reasoning

0:15:56.850,0:15:58.170
is the

0:15:58.169,0:16:02.589
eighteenth century German philosopher Emmanuel Kant.

0:16:02.590,0:16:03.860
So we will look

0:16:03.860,0:16:07.259
at those two different modes of moral reasoning

0:16:07.259,0:16:08.299
assess them

0:16:08.299,0:16:10.669
and also consider others.

0:16:10.669,0:16:16.099
If you look at the syllabus, you'll notice that we read a number of great and famous books.

0:16:16.100,0:16:18.310
Books by Aristotle

0:16:18.309,0:16:19.889
John Locke

0:16:19.889,0:16:22.080
Emanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill,

0:16:22.080,0:16:24.030
and others.

0:16:24.029,0:16:28.169
You'll notice too from the syllabus that we don't only read these books,

0:16:28.169,0:16:30.069
we also all

0:16:30.070,0:16:32.010
take up

0:16:32.009,0:16:37.000
contemporary political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions.

0:16:37.000,0:16:40.190
We will debate equality and inequality,

0:16:40.190,0:16:41.490
affirmative action,

0:16:41.490,0:16:43.698
free speech versus hate speech,

0:16:43.698,0:16:47.039
same sex marriage, military conscription,

0:16:47.039,0:16:50.980
a range of practical questions, why

0:16:50.980,0:16:55.350
not just to enliven these abstract and distant books

0:16:55.350,0:17:01.040
but to make clear to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives including our political

0:17:01.039,0:17:03.519
lives,

0:17:03.519,0:17:05.639
for philosophy.

0:17:05.640,0:17:07.720
So we will read these books

0:17:07.720,0:17:09.818
and we will debate these

0:17:09.818,0:17:15.480
issues and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other.

0:17:15.480,0:17:17.599
This may sound appealing enough

0:17:17.599,0:17:19.109
but here

0:17:19.109,0:17:22.549
I have to issue a warning,

0:17:22.549,0:17:25.210
and the warning is this

0:17:25.210,0:17:28.500
to read these books

0:17:28.500,0:17:31.549
in this way,

0:17:31.549,0:17:34.119
as an exercise in self-knowledge,

0:17:34.119,0:17:38.849
to read them in this way carry certain risks

0:17:38.849,0:17:42.119
risks that are both personal and political,

0:17:42.119,0:17:47.799
risks that every student of political philosophy have known.

0:17:47.799,0:17:50.690
These risks spring from that fact

0:17:50.690,0:17:52.580
that philosophy

0:17:52.579,0:17:54.220
teaches us

0:17:54.220,0:17:56.400
and unsettles us

0:17:56.400,0:18:01.390
by confronting us with what we already know.

0:18:01.390,0:18:03.390
There's an irony

0:18:03.390,0:18:09.790
the difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know.

0:18:09.789,0:18:12.159
It works by taking

0:18:12.160,0:18:16.470
what we know from familiar unquestioned settings,

0:18:16.470,0:18:20.370
and making it strange.

0:18:20.369,0:18:22.389
That's how those examples worked

0:18:22.390,0:18:23.120
worked

0:18:23.119,0:18:29.029
the hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety.

0:18:29.029,0:18:33.940
it's also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy

0:18:33.940,0:18:35.640
estranges us

0:18:35.640,0:18:37.520
from the familiar

0:18:37.519,0:18:40.389
not by supplying new information

0:18:40.390,0:18:41.780
but by inviting

0:18:41.779,0:18:43.599
and provoking

0:18:43.599,0:18:47.419
a new way of seeing

0:18:47.420,0:18:49.970
but, and here's the risk,

0:18:49.970,0:18:50.720
once

0:18:50.720,0:18:54.299
the familiar turns strange,

0:18:54.299,0:18:58.259
it's never quite the same again.

0:18:58.259,0:19:00.210
Self-knowledge

0:19:00.210,0:19:03.200
is like lost innocence,

0:19:03.200,0:19:04.720
however unsettling

0:19:04.720,0:19:06.029
you find it,

0:19:06.029,0:19:07.289
it can never

0:19:07.289,0:19:09.720
be unthought

0:19:09.720,0:19:13.390
or unknown

0:19:13.390,0:19:17.259
what makes this enterprise difficult

0:19:17.259,0:19:19.970
but also riveting,

0:19:19.970,0:19:20.880
is that

0:19:20.880,0:19:25.400
moral and political philosophy is a story

0:19:25.400,0:19:29.340
and you don't know where this story will lead but what you do know

0:19:29.339,0:19:31.319
is that the story

0:19:31.319,0:19:34.480
is about you.

0:19:34.480,0:19:37.079
Those are the personal risks,

0:19:37.079,0:19:40.220
now what of the political risks.

0:19:40.220,0:19:43.038
one way of introducing of course like this

0:19:43.038,0:19:44.730
would be to promise you

0:19:44.730,0:19:46.460
that by reading these books

0:19:46.460,0:19:48.069
and debating these issues

0:19:48.069,0:19:51.769
you will become a better more responsible citizen.

0:19:51.769,0:19:56.450
You will examine the presuppositions of public policy, you will hone your political

0:19:56.450,0:19:57.289
judgment

0:19:57.289,0:20:02.819
you'll become a more effective participant in public affairs

0:20:02.819,0:20:06.869
but this would be a partial and misleading promise

0:20:06.869,0:20:11.489
political philosophy for the most part hasn't worked that way.

0:20:11.490,0:20:14.660
You have to allow for the possibility

0:20:14.660,0:20:19.100
that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen

0:20:19.099,0:20:21.969
rather than a better one

0:20:21.970,0:20:23.809
or at least a worse citizen

0:20:23.809,0:20:25.629
before it makes you

0:20:25.630,0:20:27.950
a better one

0:20:27.950,0:20:30.400
and that's because philosophy

0:20:30.400,0:20:32.620
is a distancing

0:20:32.619,0:20:34.709
even debilitating

0:20:34.710,0:20:36.600
activity

0:20:36.599,0:20:37.759
And you see this

0:20:37.759,0:20:39.890
going back to Socrates

0:20:39.890,0:20:42.290
there's a dialogue, the Gorgias

0:20:42.289,0:20:44.680
in which one of Socrates’ friends

0:20:44.680,0:20:45.620
Calicles

0:20:45.619,0:20:47.239
tries to talk him out

0:20:47.240,0:20:49.970
of philosophizing.

0:20:49.970,0:20:54.400
calicles tells Socrates philosophy is a pretty toy

0:20:54.400,0:20:57.980
if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life

0:20:57.980,0:21:03.779
but if one pursues it further than one should it is absolute ruin.

0:21:03.779,0:21:06.819
Take my advice calicles says,

0:21:06.819,0:21:08.369
abandon argument

0:21:08.369,0:21:11.669
learn the accomplishments of active life, take

0:21:11.670,0:21:16.880
for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles,

0:21:16.880,0:21:20.080
but those who have a good livelihood and reputation

0:21:20.079,0:21:22.319
and many other blessings.

0:21:22.319,0:21:26.808
So Calicles is really saying to Socrates

0:21:26.808,0:21:28.690
quit philosophizing,

0:21:28.690,0:21:30.549
get real

0:21:30.549,0:21:35.169
go to business school

0:21:35.170,0:21:38.300
and calicles did have a point

0:21:38.299,0:21:39.690
he had a point

0:21:39.690,0:21:42.210
because philosophy distances us

0:21:42.210,0:21:45.009
from conventions from established assumptions

0:21:45.009,0:21:46.750
and from settled beliefs.

0:21:46.750,0:21:48.650
those are the risks,

0:21:48.650,0:21:49.970
personal and political

0:21:49.970,0:21:54.089
and in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion,

0:21:54.089,0:21:57.470
the name of the evasion is skepticism. It's the idea

0:21:57.470,0:21:58.990
well it goes something like this

0:21:58.990,0:22:03.660
we didn't resolve, once and for all,

0:22:03.660,0:22:09.759
either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began

0:22:09.759,0:22:11.390
and if Aristotle

0:22:11.390,0:22:17.220
and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all of these years

0:22:17.220,0:22:19.589
who are we to think

0:22:19.589,0:22:23.730
that we here in Sanders Theatre over the course a semester

0:22:23.730,0:22:26.430
can resolve them

0:22:26.430,0:22:29.460
and so maybe it's just a matter of

0:22:29.460,0:22:33.519
each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more to be said about

0:22:33.519,0:22:34.170
it

0:22:34.170,0:22:36.590
no way of reasoning

0:22:36.589,0:22:37.649
that's the

0:22:37.650,0:22:39.440
evasion. The evasion of skepticism

0:22:39.440,0:22:41.279
to which I would offer the following

0:22:41.279,0:22:42.660
reply:

0:22:42.660,0:22:43.720
it's true

0:22:43.720,0:22:47.559
these questions have been debated for a very long time

0:22:47.559,0:22:49.059
but the very fact

0:22:49.059,0:22:52.700
that they have reoccurred and persisted

0:22:52.700,0:22:54.650
may suggest

0:22:54.650,0:22:57.169
that though they're impossible in one sense

0:22:57.169,0:22:59.800
their unavoidable in another

0:22:59.799,0:23:02.299
and the reason they're unavoidable

0:23:02.299,0:23:06.500
the reason they're inescapable is that we live some answer

0:23:06.500,0:23:10.069
to these questions every day.

0:23:10.069,0:23:16.129
So skepticism, just throwing up their hands and giving up on moral reflection,

0:23:16.130,0:23:18.280
is no solution

0:23:18.279,0:23:19.990
Emanuel Kant

0:23:19.990,0:23:23.710
described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote

0:23:23.710,0:23:26.308
skepticism is a resting place for human reason

0:23:26.308,0:23:29.099
where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings

0:23:29.099,0:23:33.069
but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement.

0:23:33.069,0:23:35.939
Simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote,

0:23:35.940,0:23:42.660
can never suffice to overcome the restless of reason.

0:23:42.660,0:23:47.040
I've tried to suggest through theses stories and these arguments

0:23:47.039,0:23:49.898
some sense of the risks and temptations

0:23:49.898,0:23:55.589
of the perils and the possibilities I would simply conclude by saying

0:23:55.589,0:23:58.099
that the aim of this course

0:23:58.099,0:23:59.629
is to awaken

0:23:59.630,0:24:02.240
the restlessness of reason

0:24:02.240,0:24:04.380
and to see where it might lead

0:24:04.380,0:24:11.380
thank you very much.

0:24:15.440,0:24:16.980
Like, in a situation that desperate,

0:24:16.980,0:24:21.259
you have to do what you have to do to survive. You have to do what you have to do you? You've gotta do

0:24:21.259,0:24:22.779
What you

0:24:22.779,0:24:23.619
gotta do. pretty much,

0:24:23.619,0:24:25.699
If you've been going nineteen days without any food

0:24:25.700,0:24:32.700
someone has to take the sacrifice, someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive. Alright that's good, what's your name? Marcus.

0:24:33.569,0:24:40.349
Marcus, what do you say to Marcus?

0:24:40.349,0:24:44.569
Last time

0:24:44.569,0:24:46.960
we started out last time

0:24:46.960,0:24:48.980
with some stores

0:24:48.980,0:24:51.019
with some moral dilemmas

0:24:51.019,0:24:53.049
about trolley cars

0:24:53.049,0:24:54.509
and about doctors

0:24:54.509,0:24:56.269
and healthy patients

0:24:56.269,0:24:57.559
vulnerable

0:24:57.559,0:25:00.909
to being victims of organ transplantation

0:25:00.910,0:25:04.090
we noticed two things

0:25:04.089,0:25:06.889
about the arguments we had

0:25:06.890,0:25:10.830
one had to do with the way we were arguing

0:25:10.829,0:25:13.569
it began with our judgments in particular cases

0:25:13.569,0:25:18.470
we tried to articulate the reasons or the principles

0:25:18.470,0:25:22.549
lying behind our judgments

0:25:22.549,0:25:25.399
and then confronted with a new case

0:25:25.400,0:25:30.759
we found ourselves re-examining those principles

0:25:30.759,0:25:34.019
revising each in the light of the other

0:25:34.019,0:25:38.920
and we noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring into alignment

0:25:38.920,0:25:41.680
our judgments about particular cases

0:25:41.680,0:25:43.940
and the principles we would endorse

0:25:43.940,0:25:46.360
on reflection

0:25:46.359,0:25:50.589
we also noticed something about the substance of the arguments

0:25:50.589,0:25:55.250
that emerged from the discussion.

0:25:55.250,0:26:00.859
We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act in the consequences

0:26:00.859,0:26:06.519
in the results, in the state of the world that it brought about.

0:26:06.519,0:26:09.019
We called is consequentialist

0:26:09.019,0:26:11.690
moral reason.

0:26:11.690,0:26:13.240
But we also noticed that

0:26:13.240,0:26:16.440
in some cases

0:26:16.440,0:26:18.610
we weren't swayed only

0:26:18.609,0:26:22.089
by the results

0:26:22.089,0:26:23.399
sometimes,

0:26:23.400,0:26:25.350
many of us felt,

0:26:25.349,0:26:31.669
that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality or character of the act

0:26:31.670,0:26:35.370
matters morally.

0:26:35.369,0:26:40.979
Some people argued that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong

0:26:40.980,0:26:42.579
even if they bring about

0:26:42.579,0:26:44.460
a good result

0:26:44.460,0:26:45.490
even

0:26:45.490,0:26:47.200
if they save five people

0:26:47.200,0:26:49.788
at the cost of one life.

0:26:49.788,0:26:52.730
So we contrasted consequentialist

0:26:52.730,0:26:54.569
moral principles

0:26:54.569,0:26:58.139
with categorical ones.

0:26:58.140,0:26:59.790
Today

0:26:59.789,0:27:00.819
and in the next few days

0:27:00.819,0:27:06.569
we will begin to examine one of the most influential

0:27:06.569,0:27:08.839
versions of consequentialist

0:27:08.839,0:27:10.970
moral theory

0:27:10.970,0:27:16.329
and that's the philosophy of utilitarianism.

0:27:16.329,0:27:17.429
Jeremy Bentham,

0:27:17.430,0:27:19.080
the eighteenth century

0:27:19.079,0:27:21.689
English political philosopher

0:27:21.690,0:27:22.910
gave first

0:27:22.910,0:27:26.630
the first clear systematic expression

0:27:26.630,0:27:28.670
to the utilitarian

0:27:28.670,0:27:32.210
moral theory.

0:27:32.210,0:27:36.400
And Bentham's idea,

0:27:36.400,0:27:38.440
his essential idea

0:27:38.440,0:27:42.930
is a very simple one

0:27:42.930,0:27:44.808
with a lot of

0:27:44.808,0:27:46.329
morally

0:27:46.329,0:27:48.429
intuitive appeal.

0:27:48.430,0:27:50.450
Bentham's idea is

0:27:50.450,0:27:51.590
the following

0:27:51.589,0:27:54.439
the right thing to do

0:27:54.440,0:27:57.799
the just thing to do

0:27:57.799,0:27:58.819
it's to

0:27:58.819,0:28:01.369
maximize

0:28:01.369,0:28:02.339
utility.

0:28:02.339,0:28:06.329
What did he mean by utility?

0:28:06.329,0:28:11.490
He meant by utility the balance

0:28:11.490,0:28:14.000
of pleasure over pain,

0:28:14.000,0:28:16.778
happiness over suffering.

0:28:16.778,0:28:18.210
Here's how we arrived

0:28:18.210,0:28:19.259
at the principle

0:28:19.259,0:28:22.308
of maximizing utility.

0:28:22.308,0:28:24.450
He started out by observing

0:28:24.450,0:28:26.399
that all of us

0:28:26.398,0:28:27.750
all human beings

0:28:27.750,0:28:31.490
are governed by two sovereign masters,

0:28:31.490,0:28:34.620
pain and pleasure.

0:28:34.619,0:28:37.479
We human beings

0:28:37.480,0:28:42.308
like pleasure and dislike pain

0:28:42.308,0:28:45.839
and so we should base morality

0:28:45.839,0:28:49.169
whether we are thinking of what to do in our own lives

0:28:49.170,0:28:50.490
or whether

0:28:50.490,0:28:52.579
as legislators or citizens

0:28:52.579,0:28:57.029
we are thinking about what the law should be,

0:28:57.029,0:29:02.069
the right thing to do individually or collectively

0:29:02.069,0:29:05.838
is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes

0:29:05.838,0:29:07.659
the overall level

0:29:07.660,0:29:11.519
of happiness.

0:29:11.519,0:29:15.430
Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summed up with the slogan

0:29:15.430,0:29:18.870
the greatest good for the greatest number.

0:29:18.869,0:29:20.398
With this

0:29:20.398,0:29:22.989
basic principle of utility on hand,

0:29:22.990,0:29:26.410
let's begin to test it and to examine it

0:29:26.410,0:29:28.409
by turning to another case

0:29:28.409,0:29:30.620
another story but this time

0:29:30.619,0:29:32.639
not a hypothetical story,

0:29:32.640,0:29:34.120
a real-life story

0:29:34.119,0:29:35.059
the case of

0:29:35.059,0:29:38.329
the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens.

0:29:38.329,0:29:41.889
This was a nineteenth-century British law case

0:29:41.890,0:29:44.009
that's famous

0:29:44.009,0:29:47.538
and much debated in law schools.

0:29:47.538,0:29:50.059
Here's what happened in the case

0:29:50.059,0:29:51.869
I'll summarize the story

0:29:51.869,0:29:54.909
and then I want to hear

0:29:54.910,0:29:57.640
how you would rule

0:29:57.640,0:30:04.350
imagining that you are the jury.

0:30:04.349,0:30:06.178
A newspaper account of the time

0:30:06.179,0:30:09.290
described the background:

0:30:09.289,0:30:11.460
A sadder story of disaster at sea

0:30:11.460,0:30:12.789
was never told

0:30:12.789,0:30:15.288
than that of the survivors of the yacht

0:30:15.288,0:30:16.240
Mignonette.

0:30:16.240,0:30:19.109
The ship foundered in the south Atlantic

0:30:19.109,0:30:21.789
thirteen hundred miles from the cape

0:30:21.789,0:30:24.000
there were four in the crew,

0:30:24.000,0:30:26.500
Dudley was the captain

0:30:26.500,0:30:28.400
Stephens was the first mate

0:30:28.400,0:30:30.220
Brooks was a sailor,

0:30:30.220,0:30:31.279
all men of

0:30:31.279,0:30:32.490
excellent character,

0:30:32.490,0:30:34.249
or so the newspaper account

0:30:34.249,0:30:35.819
tells us.

0:30:35.819,0:30:38.639
The fourth crew member was the cabin boy,

0:30:38.640,0:30:40.300
Richard Parker

0:30:40.299,0:30:42.849
seventeen years old.

0:30:42.849,0:30:44.629
He was an orphan

0:30:44.630,0:30:46.930
he had no family

0:30:46.930,0:30:51.410
and he was on his first long voyage at sea.

0:30:51.410,0:30:53.700
He went, the news account tells us,

0:30:53.700,0:30:56.730
rather against the advice of his friends.

0:30:56.730,0:31:00.210
He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition

0:31:00.210,0:31:03.390
thinking the journey would make a man of him.

0:31:03.390,0:31:05.140
Sadly it was not to be,

0:31:05.140,0:31:07.780
the facts of the case were not in dispute,

0:31:07.779,0:31:08.970
a wave hit the ship

0:31:08.970,0:31:12.000
and the Mignonette went down.

0:31:12.000,0:31:14.859
The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat

0:31:14.859,0:31:16.199
the only

0:31:16.200,0:31:18.380
food they had

0:31:18.380,0:31:19.659
were two

0:31:19.659,0:31:20.990
cans of preserved

0:31:20.990,0:31:21.779
turnips

0:31:21.779,0:31:23.980
no fresh water

0:31:23.980,0:31:26.610
for the first three days they ate nothing

0:31:26.609,0:31:30.459
on the fourth day that opened one of the cans of turnips

0:31:30.460,0:31:31.590
and ate it.

0:31:31.589,0:31:34.449
The next day they caught a turtle

0:31:34.450,0:31:36.960
together with the other can of turnips

0:31:36.960,0:31:38.549
the turtle

0:31:38.549,0:31:40.058
enabled them to subsist

0:31:40.058,0:31:43.069
for the next few days and then for eight days

0:31:43.069,0:31:44.038
they had nothing

0:31:44.038,0:31:47.069
no food no water.

0:31:47.069,0:31:50.069
Imagine yourself in a situation like that

0:31:50.069,0:31:52.849
what would you do?

0:31:52.849,0:31:55.119
Here's what they did

0:31:55.119,0:32:00.969
by now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in a corner

0:32:00.970,0:32:03.230
because he had drunk sea water

0:32:03.230,0:32:05.490
against the advice of the others

0:32:05.490,0:32:07.230
and he had become ill

0:32:07.230,0:32:10.669
and he appeared to be dying

0:32:10.669,0:32:14.619
so on the nineteenth day Dudley, the captain, suggested

0:32:14.618,0:32:17.349
that they should all

0:32:17.349,0:32:18.759
have a lottery. That they should

0:32:18.759,0:32:19.619
all draw lots to see

0:32:19.619,0:32:20.859
who would die

0:32:20.859,0:32:24.079
to save the rest.

0:32:24.079,0:32:25.210
Brooks

0:32:25.210,0:32:26.539
refused

0:32:26.539,0:32:29.139
he didn't like the lottery idea

0:32:29.140,0:32:30.619
we don't know whether this

0:32:30.618,0:32:35.999
was because he didn't want to take that chance or because he believed in categorical moral

0:32:35.999,0:32:36.870
principles

0:32:36.869,0:32:38.619
but in any case

0:32:38.619,0:32:42.129
no lots were drawn.

0:32:42.130,0:32:43.230
The next day

0:32:43.230,0:32:45.028
there was still no ship in sight

0:32:45.028,0:32:48.470
so a Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze

0:32:48.470,0:32:50.720
and he motioned to Stephens

0:32:50.720,0:32:53.929
that the boy Parker had better be killed.

0:32:53.929,0:32:55.850
Dudley offered a prayer

0:32:55.849,0:32:58.480
he told a the boy his time had come

0:32:58.480,0:33:00.679
and he killed him with a pen knife

0:33:00.679,0:33:03.900
stabbing him in the jugular vein.

0:33:03.900,0:33:09.750
Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty.

0:33:09.750,0:33:11.029
For four days

0:33:11.029,0:33:15.230
the three of them fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy.

0:33:15.230,0:33:17.220
True story.

0:33:17.220,0:33:19.390
And then they were rescued.

0:33:19.390,0:33:22.840
Dudley describes their rescue

0:33:22.839,0:33:24.678
in his diary

0:33:24.679,0:33:27.570
with staggering euphemism, quote:

0:33:27.569,0:33:29.648
"on the twenty fourth day

0:33:29.648,0:33:34.750
as we were having our breakfast

0:33:34.750,0:33:38.599
a ship appeared at last."

0:33:38.599,0:33:44.309
The three survivors were picked up by a German ship. They were taken back to Falmouth in England

0:33:44.309,0:33:47.079
where they were arrested and tried

0:33:47.079,0:33:47.829
Brooks

0:33:47.829,0:33:49.949
turned state's witness

0:33:49.950,0:33:54.450
Dudley and Stephens went to trial. They didn't dispute the facts

0:33:54.450,0:33:55.390
they claimed

0:33:55.390,0:33:58.140
they had acted out of necessity

0:33:58.140,0:33:59.430
that was their defense

0:33:59.430,0:34:01.220
they argued in effect

0:34:01.220,0:34:03.250
better that one should die

0:34:03.250,0:34:06.420
so that three could survive

0:34:06.420,0:34:08.619
the prosecutor

0:34:08.619,0:34:10.849
wasn't swayed by that argument

0:34:10.849,0:34:12.509
he said murder is murder

0:34:12.509,0:34:16.429
and so the case went to trial. Now imagine you are the jury

0:34:16.429,0:34:19.489
and just to simplify the discussion

0:34:19.489,0:34:21.989
put aside the question of law,

0:34:21.989,0:34:23.010
and let's assume that

0:34:23.010,0:34:25.879
you as the jury

0:34:25.878,0:34:28.278
are charged with deciding

0:34:28.278,0:34:31.009
whether what they did was morally

0:34:31.009,0:34:34.378
permissible or not.

0:34:34.378,0:34:36.608
How many

0:34:36.608,0:34:39.808
would vote

0:34:39.809,0:34:46.809
not guilty, that what they did was morally permissible?

0:34:49.528,0:34:51.639
And how many would vote guilty

0:34:51.639,0:34:54.858
what they did was morally wrong?

0:34:54.858,0:34:57.998
A pretty sizable majority.

0:34:57.998,0:35:03.808
Now let's see what people's reasons are, and let me begin with those who are in the minority.

0:35:03.809,0:35:07.739
Let's hear first from the defense

0:35:07.739,0:35:10.099
of Dudley and Stephens.

0:35:10.099,0:35:14.160
Why would you morally exonerate them?

0:35:14.159,0:35:17.989
What are your reasons?

0:35:17.989,0:35:20.798
I think it's I think it is morally reprehensible

0:35:20.798,0:35:24.349
but I think that there's a distinction between what's morally reprehensible

0:35:24.349,0:35:26.609
what makes someone legally accountable

0:35:26.608,0:35:30.690
in other words the night as the judge said what's always moral isn't necessarily

0:35:30.690,0:35:34.789
against the law and while I don't think that necessity

0:35:34.789,0:35:36.169
justifies

0:35:36.168,0:35:38.578
theft or murder any illegal act,

0:35:38.579,0:35:43.509
at some point your degree of necessity does in fact

0:35:43.509,0:35:45.849
exonerate you form any guilt. ok.

0:35:45.849,0:35:50.588
other defenders, other voices for the defense?

0:35:50.588,0:35:53.038
Moral justifications for

0:35:53.039,0:35:56.989
what they did?

0:35:56.989,0:35:57.619
yes, thank you

0:35:57.619,0:35:58.798


0:35:58.798,0:35:59.570
I just feel like

0:35:59.570,0:36:03.139
in a situation that desperate you have to do what you have to do to survive.

0:36:03.139,0:36:04.679
You have to do what you have to do

0:36:04.679,0:36:06.789
ya, you gotta do what you gotta do, pretty much.

0:36:06.789,0:36:07.849
If you've been

0:36:07.849,0:36:09.899
going nineteen days without any food

0:36:09.898,0:36:14.710
you know someone just has to take the sacrifice has to make sacrifices and people can survive

0:36:14.710,0:36:16.139
and furthermore from that

0:36:16.139,0:36:21.299
let's say they survived and then they become productive members of society who go home and then start like

0:36:21.300,0:36:26.230
a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that, I mean they benefit everybody in the end so

0:36:26.230,0:36:28.519
I mean I don't know what they did afterwards, I mean they might have

0:36:28.519,0:36:30.478
gone on and killed more people

0:36:30.478,0:36:32.889
but whatever.

0:36:32.889,0:36:35.708
what? what if they were going home and turned out to be assassins?

0:36:35.708,0:36:38.908
What if they were going home and turned out to be assassins?

0:36:38.909,0:36:42.878
You would want to know who they assassinated.

0:36:42.878,0:36:45.848
That's true too, that's fair

0:36:45.849,0:36:49.609
I would wanna know who they assassinated.

0:36:49.608,0:36:50.708
alright that's good, what's your name? Marcus.

0:36:50.708,0:36:52.489
We've heard a defense

0:36:52.489,0:36:54.050
a couple voices for the defense

0:36:54.050,0:36:55.660
now we need to hear

0:36:55.659,0:36:57.298
from the prosecution

0:36:57.298,0:36:59.338
most people think

0:36:59.338,0:37:05.068
what they did was wrong, why?

0:37:05.068,0:37:09.898
One of the first things that I was thinking was, oh well if they haven't been eating for a really long time,

0:37:09.898,0:37:11.409
maybe

0:37:11.409,0:37:12.469
then

0:37:12.469,0:37:15.139
they're mentally affected

0:37:15.139,0:37:16.408
that could be used for the defense,

0:37:16.409,0:37:20.619
a possible argument that oh,

0:37:20.619,0:37:24.179
that they weren't in a proper state of mind, they were making

0:37:24.179,0:37:28.519
decisions that they otherwise wouldn't be making, and if that's an appealing argument

0:37:28.518,0:37:33.608
that you have to be in an altered mindset to do something like that it suggests that

0:37:33.608,0:37:36.108
people who find that argument convincing

0:37:36.108,0:37:40.088
do you think that they're acting immorally. But I want to know what you think you're defending

0:37:40.088,0:37:41.248
you k 0:37:41.249,0:37:45.549 you voted to convict right? yeah I don't think that they acted in morally

0:37:45.548,0:37:49.449
appropriate way. And why not? What do you say, Here's Marcus

0:37:49.449,0:37:51.088
he just defended them,

0:37:51.088,0:37:52.909
he said,

0:37:52.909,0:37:53.880
you heard what he said,

0:37:53.880,0:37:55.249
yes I did

0:37:55.248,0:37:56.558
yes

0:37:56.559,0:38:00.119
that you've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that.

0:38:00.119,0:38:04.789
What do you say to Marcus?

0:38:04.789,0:38:06.439
They didn't,

0:38:06.438,0:38:13.438
that there is no situation that would allow human beings to take

0:38:13.579,0:38:17.959
the idea of fate or the other people's lives into their own hands that we don't have

0:38:17.958,0:38:19.328
that kind of power.

0:38:19.329,0:38:21.399
Good, okay

0:38:21.398,0:38:24.130
thanks you, and what's your name?

0:38:24.130,0:38:24.548
Britt? okay.

0:38:24.548,0:38:26.028
who else?

0:38:26.028,0:38:28.159
What do you say? Stand up

0:38:28.159,0:38:35.159
I'm wondering if Dudley and Stephens had asked for Richard Parker's consent in, you know, dying,

0:38:35.429,0:38:37.568
if that would

0:38:37.568,0:38:41.228
would that exonerate them

0:38:41.228,0:38:45.448
from an act of murder, and if so is that still morally justifiable?

0:38:45.449,0:38:51.720
That's interesting, alright consent, now hang on, what's your name? Kathleen.

0:38:51.719,0:38:56.088
Kathleen says suppose so what would that scenario look like?

0:38:56.088,0:38:56.619
so in the story

0:38:56.619,0:39:00.410
Dudley is there, pen knife in hand,

0:39:00.409,0:39:02.608
but instead of the prayer

0:39:02.608,0:39:04.588
or before the prayer,

0:39:04.588,0:39:07.599
he says, Parker,

0:39:07.599,0:39:11.519
would you mind

0:39:11.518,0:39:14.348
we're desperately hungry,

0:39:14.349,0:39:17.679
as Marcus empathizes with

0:39:17.679,0:39:19.769
we're desperately hungry

0:39:19.768,0:39:22.168
you're not going to last long anyhow,

0:39:22.168,0:39:23.498
you can be a martyr,

0:39:23.498,0:39:25.748
would you be a martyr

0:39:25.748,0:39:29.468
how about it Parker?

0:39:29.469,0:39:33.220
Then, then

0:39:33.219,0:39:37.639
then what do you think, would be morally justified then? Suppose

0:39:37.639,0:39:38.219
Parker

0:39:38.219,0:39:40.168
in his semi-stupor

0:39:40.168,0:39:42.498
says okay

0:39:42.498,0:39:47.889
I don't think it'll be morally justifiable but I'm wondering. Even then, even then it wouldn't be? No

0:39:47.889,0:39:50.650
You don't think that even with consent

0:39:50.650,0:39:52.490
it would be morally justified.

0:39:52.489,0:39:54.568
Are there people who think

0:39:54.568,0:39:56.369
who want to take up Kathleen's

0:39:56.369,0:39:57.200
consent idea

0:39:57.199,0:40:01.688
and who think that that would make it morally justified? Raise your hand if it would

0:40:01.688,0:40:05.868
if you think it would.

0:40:05.869,0:40:07.588
That's very interesting

0:40:07.588,0:40:09.168
Why would consent

0:40:09.168,0:40:15.888
make a moral difference? Why would it?

0:40:15.889,0:40:18.509
Well I just think that if he was making his own original idea

0:40:18.509,0:40:20.969
and it was his idea to start with

0:40:20.969,0:40:23.778
then that would be the only situation in which I would

0:40:23.778,0:40:25.940
see it being appropriate in anyway 0:40:25.940,0:40:28.359 because that way you couldn't make the argument that

0:40:28.358,0:40:30.579
he was pressured you know it’s three

0:40:30.579,0:40:32.759
to one or whatever the ratio was,

0:40:32.759,0:40:34.070
and I think that

0:40:34.070,0:40:38.009
if he was making a decision to give his life then he took on the agency

0:40:38.009,0:40:42.668
to sacrifice himself which some people might see as admirable and other people

0:40:42.668,0:40:45.449
might disagree with that decision.

0:40:45.449,0:40:49.099
So if he came up with the idea

0:40:49.099,0:40:52.820
that's the only kind of consent we could have confidence in

0:40:52.820,0:40:55.359
morally, then it would be okay

0:40:55.358,0:40:57.268
otherwise

0:40:57.268,0:40:59.788
it would be kind of coerced consent

0:40:59.789,0:41:01.469
under the circumstances

0:41:01.469,0:41:05.278
you think.

0:41:05.278,0:41:07.349
Is there anyone who thinks

0:41:07.349,0:41:10.979
that the even the consent of Parker

0:41:10.978,0:41:13.419
would not justify

0:41:13.420,0:41:15.479
their killing him?

0:41:15.478,0:41:18.088
Who thinks that?

0:41:18.088,0:41:19.538
Yes, tell us why, stand up

0:41:19.539,0:41:21.260
I think that Parker

0:41:21.260,0:41:22.319
would be killed

0:41:22.318,0:41:26.558
with the hope that the other crew members would be rescued so

0:41:26.559,0:41:29.250
there's no definite reason that he should be killed

0:41:29.250,0:41:31.199
because you don't know

0:41:31.199,0:41:35.809
when they're going to get rescued so if you kill him you're killing him in vain

0:41:35.809,0:41:38.039
do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued and then you're left with no one?

0:41:38.039,0:41:40.309
because someone's going to die eventually?

0:41:40.309,0:41:44.199
Well the moral logic of the situation seems to be that.

0:41:44.199,0:41:45.829
That they would

0:41:45.829,0:41:50.318
keep on picking off the weakest maybe, one by one,

0:41:50.318,0:41:51.818
until they were

0:41:51.818,0:41:57.679
rescued and in this case luckily when three at least were still alive.

0:41:57.679,0:41:58.880
Now if

0:41:58.880,0:42:01.298
if Parker did give his consent

0:42:01.298,0:42:04.068
would it be all right do you think or not?

0:42:04.068,0:42:06.329
No, it still wouldn't be right.

0:42:06.329,0:42:08.030
Tell us why wouldn't be all right.

0:42:08.030,0:42:10.028
First of all, cannibalism, I believe

0:42:10.028,0:42:13.228
is morally incorrect

0:42:13.228,0:42:14.509
so you shouldn’t be eating a human anyway.

0:42:14.510,0:42:17.449
So

0:42:17.449,0:42:19.380
cannibalism is morally objectionable outside

0:42:19.380,0:42:22.400
so then even in the scenario

0:42:22.400,0:42:24.568
of waiting until someone died

0:42:24.568,0:42:27.018
still it would be objectionable.

0:42:27.018,0:42:27.929
Yes, to me personally

0:42:27.929,0:42:29.739
I feel like of

0:42:29.739,0:42:31.199
it all depends on

0:42:31.199,0:42:35.288
one's personal morals, like we can't just, like this is just my opinion

0:42:35.289,0:42:39.339
of course other people are going to disagree.

0:42:39.338,0:42:41.498
Well let's see, let's hear what their disagreements are

0:42:41.498,0:42:42.639
and then we'll see

0:42:42.639,0:42:44.259
if they have reasons

0:42:44.259,0:42:46.228
that can persuade you or not.

0:42:46.228,0:42:48.358
Let's try that

0:42:48.358,0:42:50.098
Let's

0:42:50.099,0:42:53.249
now is there someone

0:42:53.248,0:42:57.908
who can explain, those of you who are tempted by consent

0:42:57.909,0:42:59.778
can you explain

0:42:59.778,0:43:02.028
why consent makes

0:43:02.028,0:43:03.358
such a moral difference,

0:43:03.358,0:43:05.650
what about the lottery idea

0:43:05.650,0:43:08.930
does that count as consent. Remember at the beginning

0:43:08.929,0:43:11.308
Dudley proposed a lottery

0:43:11.309,0:43:13.839
suppose that they had agreed

0:43:13.838,0:43:16.338
to a lottery

0:43:16.338,0:43:17.369
then

0:43:17.369,0:43:20.798
how many would then say

0:43:20.798,0:43:23.929
it was all right. Say there was a lottery,

0:43:23.929,0:43:25.380
cabin boy lost,

0:43:25.380,0:43:32.380
and the rest of the story unfolded. How many people would say it's morally permissible?

0:43:33.199,0:43:37.030
So the numbers are rising if we add a lottery, let's hear from one of you

0:43:37.030,0:43:41.609
for whom the lottery would make a moral difference

0:43:41.608,0:43:43.458
why would it?

0:43:43.458,0:43:44.739
I think the essential

0:43:44.739,0:43:45.718
element,

0:43:45.719,0:43:47.858
in my mind that makes it a crime is

0:43:47.858,0:43:53.848
the idea that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his, and that

0:43:53.849,0:43:56.609
I mean that's kind of the basis for really any crime

0:43:56.608,0:43:57.688
right? It's like

0:43:57.688,0:44:01.949
my needs, my desire is a more important than yours and mine take precedent

0:44:01.949,0:44:04.798
and if they had done a lottery were everyone consented

0:44:04.798,0:44:06.478
that someone should die

0:44:06.478,0:44:09.239
and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves,

0:44:09.239,0:44:11.008
to save the rest,

0:44:11.009,0:44:12.949
Then it would be all right?

0:44:12.949,0:44:15.880
A little grotesque but,

0:44:15.880,0:44:18.959
But morally permissible? Yes.

0:44:18.958,0:44:22.688
what's your name? Matt.

0:44:22.688,0:44:25.578
so, Matt for you

0:44:25.579,0:44:27.329
what bothers you is not

0:44:27.329,0:44:31.389
the cannibalism, but the lack of due process.

0:44:31.389,0:44:34.689
I guess you could say that

0:44:34.688,0:44:38.170
And can someone who agrees with Matt

0:44:38.170,0:44:40.499
say a little bit more

0:44:40.498,0:44:41.378
about why

0:44:41.378,0:44:43.690
a lottery

0:44:43.690,0:44:47.099
would make it, in your view,

0:44:47.099,0:44:50.979
morally permissible.

0:44:50.978,0:44:55.568
The way I understood it originally was that that was the whole issue is that the cabin boy was never

0:44:55.568,0:44:56.398
consulted

0:44:56.398,0:45:00.478
about whether or not it something was going to happen to him even though with the original

0:45:00.478,0:45:01.088
lottery

0:45:01.088,0:45:04.420
whether or not he would be a part of that it was just decided

0:45:04.420,0:45:08.170
that he was the one that was going to die. Yes that's what happened in the actual case

0:45:08.170,0:45:11.900
but if there were a lottery and they all agreed to the procedure

0:45:11.900,0:45:13.539
you think that would be okay?

0:45:13.539,0:45:16.418
Right, because everyone knows that there's gonna be a death

0:45:16.418,0:45:17.079
whereas

0:45:17.079,0:45:18.878
you know the cabin boy didn't know that

0:45:18.878,0:45:21.038
this discussion was even happening

0:45:21.039,0:45:21.919
there was no

0:45:21.918,0:45:23.578
you know forewarning

0:45:23.579,0:45:28.829
for him to know that hey, I may be the one that's dying. Okay, now suppose the everyone agrees

0:45:28.829,0:45:35.089
to the lottery they have the lottery the cabin boy loses any changes his mind.

0:45:35.088,0:45:40.989
You've already decided, it's like a verbal contract, you can't go back on that. You've decided the decision was made

0:45:40.989,0:45:45.139
you know if you know you're dying for the reason for at others to live,

0:45:45.139,0:45:45.999
you would, you know

0:45:45.998,0:45:47.688
if the someone else had died

0:45:47.688,0:45:51.969
you know that you would consume them, so

0:45:51.969,0:45:57.429
But then he could say I know, but I lost.

0:45:57.429,0:46:01.939
I just think that that's the whole moral issue is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy and that that's

0:46:01.938,0:46:04.298
what makes it the most horrible

0:46:04.298,0:46:08.909
is that he had no idea what was even going on, that if he had known what was going on

0:46:08.909,0:46:10.599
it would

0:46:10.599,0:46:13.109
be a bit more understandable.

0:46:13.108,0:46:14.509
Alright, good, now I want to hear

0:46:14.510,0:46:17.049
so there's some who think

0:46:17.048,0:46:18.708
it's morally permissible

0:46:18.708,0:46:24.048
but only about twenty percent,

0:46:24.048,0:46:26.559
led by Marcus,

0:46:26.559,0:46:28.439
then there are some who say

0:46:28.438,0:46:30.208
the real problem here

0:46:30.208,0:46:32.838
is the lack of consent

0:46:32.838,0:46:37.139
whether the lack of consent to a lottery to a fair procedure

0:46:37.139,0:46:38.588
or

0:46:38.588,0:46:39.690
Kathleen's idea,

0:46:39.690,0:46:40.749
lack of consent

0:46:40.748,0:46:42.928
at the moment

0:46:42.929,0:46:45.139
of death

0:46:45.139,0:46:48.318
and if we add consent

0:46:48.318,0:46:49.019
then

0:46:49.019,0:46:51.889
more people are willing to consider

0:46:51.889,0:46:54.528
the sacrifice morally justified.

0:46:54.528,0:46:56.639
I want to hear now finally

0:46:56.639,0:46:58.548
from those of you who think

0:46:58.548,0:47:00.199
even with consent

0:47:00.199,0:47:01.898
even with a lottery

0:47:01.898,0:47:02.519
even with

0:47:02.519,0:47:04.579
a final

0:47:04.579,0:47:06.950
murmur of consent from Parker

0:47:06.949,0:47:08.018
at the

0:47:08.018,0:47:09.179
very last moment

0:47:09.179,0:47:10.838
it would still

0:47:10.838,0:47:12.639
be wrong

0:47:12.639,0:47:14.248
and why would it be wrong

0:47:14.248,0:47:16.998
that's what I want to hear.

0:47:16.998,0:47:18.818
well the whole time

0:47:18.818,0:47:22.639
I've been leaning towards the categorical moral reasoning

0:47:22.639,0:47:25.568
and I think that

0:47:25.568,0:47:29.608
there's a possibility I'd be okay with the idea of the lottery and then loser

0:47:29.608,0:47:31.440
taking into their own hands to

0:47:31.440,0:47:32.749
kill themselves

0:47:32.748,0:47:33.679


0:47:33.679,0:47:37.358
so there wouldn't be an act of murder but I still think that

0:47:37.358,0:47:42.278
even that way it's coerced and also I don't think that there's any remorse like in

0:47:42.278,0:47:43.338
Dudley's diary

0:47:43.338,0:47:44.909
we're getting our breakfast

0:47:44.909,0:47:47.659
it seems as though he's just sort of like, oh,

0:47:47.659,0:47:51.440
you know that whole idea of not valuing someone else's life

0:47:51.440,0:47:53.639
so that makes me

0:47:53.639,0:47:57.969
feel like I have to take the categorical stance. You want to throw the book at him.

0:47:57.969,0:48:02.298
when he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong. Right.

0:48:02.298,0:48:06.969
Alright, good so are there any other

0:48:06.969,0:48:08.769
defenders who

0:48:08.768,0:48:13.268
who say it's just categorically wrong, with or without consent, yes stand up. Why?

0:48:13.268,0:48:17.288
I think undoubtedly the way our society is shaped, murder is murder

0:48:17.289,0:48:21.829
murder is murder and every way our society looks down at it in the same light

0:48:21.829,0:48:24.780
and I don't think it's any different in any case. Good now let me ask you a question,

0:48:24.780,0:48:27.119
there were three lives at stake

0:48:27.119,0:48:30.489
versus one,

0:48:30.489,0:48:33.028
the one, that the cabin boy, he had no family

0:48:33.028,0:48:34.509
he had no dependents,

0:48:34.509,0:48:38.739
these other three had families back home in England they had dependents

0:48:38.739,0:48:41.418
they had wives and children

0:48:41.418,0:48:43.328
think back to Bentham,

0:48:43.329,0:48:44.989
Bentham says we have to consider

0:48:44.989,0:48:48.048
the welfare, the utility, the happiness

0:48:48.048,0:48:51.288
of everybody. We have to add it all up

0:48:51.289,0:48:54.640
so it's not just numbers three against one

0:48:54.639,0:48:58.759
it's also all of those people at home

0:48:58.759,0:49:00.909
in fact the London newspaper at the time

0:49:00.909,0:49:04.248
and popular opinion sympathized with them

0:49:04.248,0:49:05.478
Dudley in Stephens

0:49:05.478,0:49:07.919
and the paper said if they weren't

0:49:07.920,0:49:08.280
motivated

0:49:08.280,0:49:09.640
by affection

0:49:09.639,0:49:13.489
and concern for their loved ones at home and dependents, surely they wouldn't have

0:49:13.489,0:49:15.969
done this. Yeah, and how is that any different from people

0:49:15.969,0:49:17.369
on the corner

0:49:17.369,0:49:21.108
trying to having the same desire to feed their family, I don't think it's any different. I think in any case

0:49:21.108,0:49:25.279
if I'm murdering you to advance my status, that's murder and I think that we should look at all

0:49:25.280,0:49:28.430
of that in the same light. Instead of criminalizing certain

0:49:28.429,0:49:30.278
activities

0:49:30.278,0:49:33.760
and making certain things seem more violent and savage

0:49:33.760,0:49:36.760
when in that same case it's all the same act and mentality

0:49:36.760,0:49:40.150
that goes into the murder, a necessity to feed their families.

0:49:40.150,0:49:43.028
Suppose there weren't three, supposed there were thirty,

0:49:43.028,0:49:44.608
three hundred,

0:49:44.608,0:49:47.358
one life to save three hundred

0:49:47.358,0:49:48.349
or in more time,

0:49:48.349,0:49:49.589
three thousand

0:49:49.590,0:49:51.039
or suppose the stakes were even bigger.

0:49:51.039,0:49:52.778
Suppose the stakes were even bigger

0:49:52.778,0:49:54.608
I think it's still the same deal.

0:49:54.608,0:49:58.108
Do you think Bentham was wrong to say the right thing to do

0:49:58.108,0:49:58.929
is to add

0:49:58.929,0:50:02.479
up the collected happiness, you think he's wrong about that?

0:50:02.478,0:50:06.728
I don't think he is wrong, but I think murder is murder in any case. Well then Bentham has to be wrong

0:50:06.728,0:50:09.568
if you're right he's wrong. okay then he's wrong.

0:50:09.568,0:50:12.818
Alright thank you, well done.

0:50:12.818,0:50:14.358
Alright, let's step back

0:50:14.358,0:50:16.389
from this discussion

0:50:16.389,0:50:19.728
and notice

0:50:19.728,0:50:23.259
how many objections have we heard to what they did.

0:50:23.259,0:50:26.048
we heard some defenses of what they did

0:50:26.048,0:50:28.509
the defense has had to do with

0:50:28.509,0:50:28.918
necessity

0:50:28.918,0:50:32.588
the dire circumstance and,

0:50:32.588,0:50:33.409
implicitly at least,

0:50:33.409,0:50:36.018
the idea that numbers matter

0:50:36.018,0:50:37.858
and not only numbers matter

0:50:37.858,0:50:40.380
but the wider effects matter

0:50:40.380,0:50:43.459
their families back home, their dependents

0:50:43.458,0:50:44.768
Parker was an orphan,

0:50:44.768,0:50:47.978
no one would miss him.

0:50:47.978,0:50:49.578
so if you

0:50:49.579,0:50:50.829
add up

0:50:50.829,0:50:52.649
if you tried to calculate

0:50:52.648,0:50:53.998
the balance

0:50:53.998,0:50:56.598
of happiness and suffering

0:50:56.599,0:50:58.838
you might have a case for

0:50:58.838,0:51:02.768
saying what they did was the right thing

0:51:02.768,0:51:09.468
then we heard at least three different types of objections,

0:51:09.469,0:51:11.690
we heard an objection that's said

0:51:11.690,0:51:14.108
what they did was categorically wrong,

0:51:14.108,0:51:15.750
right here at the end

0:51:15.750,0:51:17.389
categorically wrong.

0:51:17.389,0:51:19.820
Murder is murder it's always wrong

0:51:19.820,0:51:20.969
even if

0:51:20.969,0:51:23.349
it increases the overall happiness

0:51:23.349,0:51:25.639
of society

0:51:25.639,0:51:28.499
the categorical objection.

0:51:28.498,0:51:30.738
But we still need to investigate

0:51:30.739,0:51:32.749
why murder

0:51:32.748,0:51:35.448
is categorically wrong.

0:51:35.449,0:51:38.579
Is it because

0:51:38.579,0:51:42.339
even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights?

0:51:42.338,0:51:44.400
And if that's the reason

0:51:44.400,0:51:47.880
where do those rights come from if not from some idea

0:51:47.880,0:51:53.209
of the larger welfare or utility or happiness? Question number one.

0:51:53.208,0:51:56.308
Others said

0:51:56.309,0:51:58.449
a lottery would make a difference

0:51:58.449,0:52:00.039
a fair procedure,

0:52:00.039,0:52:05.949
Matt said.

0:52:05.949,0:52:08.769
And some people were swayed by that.

0:52:08.768,0:52:12.188
That's not a categorical objection exactly

0:52:12.188,0:52:13.828
it's saying

0:52:13.829,0:52:16.798
everybody has to be counted as an equal

0:52:16.798,0:52:18.469
even though, at the end of the day

0:52:18.469,0:52:20.769
one can be sacrificed

0:52:20.768,0:52:23.288
for the general welfare.

0:52:23.289,0:52:26.059
That leaves us with another question to investigate,

0:52:26.059,0:52:29.670
Why does agreement to certain procedure,

0:52:29.670,0:52:31.969
even a fair procedure,

0:52:31.969,0:52:34.739
justify whatever result flows

0:52:34.739,0:52:38.088
from the operation of that procedure?

0:52:38.088,0:52:39.898
Question number two.

0:52:39.898,0:52:42.398
and question number three

0:52:42.398,0:52:45.338
the basic idea of consent.

0:52:45.338,0:52:48.528
Kathleen got us on to this.

0:52:48.528,0:52:52.719
If the cabin boy had agreed himself

0:52:52.719,0:52:54.499
and not under duress

0:52:54.498,0:52:57.068
as was added

0:52:57.068,0:53:01.918
then it would be all right to take his life to save the rest.

0:53:01.918,0:53:04.900
Even more people signed on to that idea

0:53:04.900,0:53:06.630
but that raises

0:53:06.630,0:53:08.528
a third philosophical question

0:53:08.528,0:53:11.009
what is the moral work

0:53:11.009,0:53:12.838
that consent

0:53:12.838,0:53:14.438
does?

0:53:14.438,0:53:16.978
Why does an act of consent

0:53:16.978,0:53:19.188
make such a moral difference

0:53:19.188,0:53:23.818
that an act that would be wrong, taking a life, without consent

0:53:23.818,0:53:25.369
is morally

0:53:25.369,0:53:26.358
permissible

0:53:26.358,0:53:29.619
with consent?

0:53:29.619,0:53:31.699
To investigate those three questions

0:53:31.699,0:53:34.108
we're going to have to read some philosophers

0:53:34.108,0:53:35.728
and starting next time

0:53:35.728,0:53:36.939
we're going to read

0:53:36.940,0:53:37.720
Bentham,

0:53:37.719,0:53:43.798
and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers.

0:53:43.798,0:53:47.298
Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of Justice

0:53:43.798,0:53:47.298
join the conversation,

0:53:49.869,0:53:56.869
take a pop quiz, watch lectures you've missed, and a lot more. Visit www.justiceharvard.org. It's the right thing to do.

0:54:36.219,0:54:40.269
Funding for the program is provided by

0:54:40.268,0:54:41.678
Additional funding provided by