Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"

Harvard University・2 minutes read

The course delves into moral dilemmas such as sacrificing one life to save five, touching on consequentialist versus categorical moral reasoning, and exploring philosophical texts in contemporary contexts. The debate extends to real-life scenarios like the shipwreck survivors' cannibalism case, raising questions about consent, moral permissibility, and the greater good in ethical decision-making.

Insights

  • Participants in the course on Justice engage in moral dilemmas like diverting a trolley to save more lives or pushing a fat man off a bridge, sparking discussions on consequentialist versus categorical moral reasoning.
  • The course aims to challenge students by applying classic philosophical texts to contemporary issues, exploring unsettling truths about society, and delving into the complexities of philosophical inquiry, including skepticism, moral reflection, and the moral permissibility of sacrificing one life for the greater good.

Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free

Recent questions

  • What is the main focus of the course?

    Justice and moral dilemmas

  • How does the course provoke critical thinking?

    By exploring uncertainties in philosophical inquiry

  • What is the significance of the trolley car scenario?

    To explore moral reasoning and principles

  • What philosophical texts are applied in the course?

    Classic philosophical texts

  • How does the course address societal norms and beliefs?

    By challenging established conventions

Related videos

Summary

00:00

Ethical Dilemmas Explored in Justice Course

  • Funding for the program is provided by various sources, including additional funding.
  • The course focuses on Justice and begins with a trolley car scenario involving a moral dilemma.
  • Participants are asked whether they would divert the trolley car to save five workers at the expense of one.
  • Majority would divert the trolley car based on the principle of saving more lives.
  • Minority argues against sacrificing one life to save five, comparing it to genocide.
  • A second scenario involves pushing a fat man to save five workers, with fewer people willing to do so.
  • Discussion arises on the difference in moral reasoning between the two scenarios.
  • Various scenarios are presented, including a doctor choosing between saving one severely injured patient or five moderately injured ones.
  • The debate delves into consequentialist versus categorical moral reasoning.
  • The course aims to explore classic philosophical texts and apply them to contemporary political and legal issues, urging students to confront unsettling truths about themselves and society.

20:54

Philosophy's Impact on Moral Dilemmas

  • Calicles advises Socrates that philosophy is beneficial in moderation at the right time of life but can lead to ruin if pursued excessively.
  • Calicles urges Socrates to abandon argumentation and focus on practical accomplishments in active life, emulating successful individuals.
  • Calicles suggests that philosophy distances individuals from societal norms, established beliefs, and conventions, posing personal and political risks.
  • Skepticism arises as an evasion tactic in response to unresolved philosophical questions, leading to individualistic principles without reasoned justification.
  • The persistence of philosophical questions over time indicates their unavoidable nature, as they impact daily life despite being unsolvable in a definitive sense.
  • Emanuel Kant criticizes skepticism as a temporary resting place for reason, emphasizing the need to overcome uncertainty through moral reflection.
  • The course aims to provoke critical thinking and explore the uncertainties and possibilities inherent in philosophical inquiry.
  • The discussion transitions to a real-life case involving the moral dilemma faced by shipwreck survivors Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks.
  • The survivors resorted to cannibalism to survive, leading to a legal trial where the defense argued necessity as justification for their actions.
  • The jury deliberates on the moral permissibility of the survivors' actions, considering factors like altered mental states, consent, and the greater good.

40:20

Ethical Debate: Sacrifice, Consent, and Morality

  • Starting with the idea of consent, the discussion revolves around the moral implications of sacrificing one's life for the survival of others.
  • The debate considers whether consent, particularly from the individual being sacrificed, justifies such actions.
  • The concept of a lottery is introduced as a potential fair procedure to determine who should be sacrificed, with varying opinions on its moral implications.
  • The objection to cannibalism is raised as a moral stance against consuming human flesh, regardless of consent or procedures.
  • The discussion delves into the lack of consultation with the cabin boy in the original scenario, highlighting the importance of informed consent.
  • Arguments are made for and against the moral permissibility of sacrificing one life for the greater good, considering societal norms and ethical principles.
  • The debate expands to include the consideration of the welfare and happiness of all individuals involved, including families and dependents.
  • The discussion concludes with the introduction of philosophical questions regarding fundamental rights, the justification of procedures, and the moral significance of consent in ethical decision-making.
Channel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatar

Try it yourself — It’s free.