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

Summary

The transcript explores complex moral dilemmas through the lens of consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning. It presents hypothetical scenarios, such as the trolley problem and the Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens case, to examine the principles behind our moral judgments. The discussion delves into utilitarianism, the concept of maximizing utility, and the role of consent in moral permissibility. The transcript highlights the challenges in aligning our moral intuitions with philosophical principles and the risks of philosophical inquiry, including the potential for unsettling personal beliefs and political convictions.

Takeaways

• 🚂 The trolley problem presents a moral dilemma: should you actively divert a trolley to save five workers at the expense of one?
• 🤔 The majority polled would choose to divert the trolley, reflecting a consequentialist approach to ethics, prioritizing the greater good.
• 📈 Utilitarianism, as proposed by Jeremy Bentham, is a consequentialist moral theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or utility.
• 🚫 The fat man scenario challenges the utilitarian principle, as many are reluctant to directly harm an innocent person, even to save others.
• 🏥 Medical ethical dilemmas, such as choosing between one severely injured patient and five with lesser injuries, further illustrate the complexity of moral decisions.
• 🔄 The principle of 'the greater good' is not universally accepted, as some adhere to categorical moral reasoning, which values absolute duties and rights over consequences.
• 🧐 The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens case highlights the debate between necessity as a defense and the categorical wrongness of murder.
• 🗳️ Jury deliberation in the case brings out differing perspectives on the morality of acts committed under extreme circumstances.
• 💭 The concept of consent is introduced as a potential moral salve, questioning whether voluntary sacrifice could justify an otherwise immoral act.
• 📚 The course aims to explore these moral principles through the lens of philosophers like Kant and Mill, and their implications on real-world issues.
• ⚖️ The study of philosophy, particularly moral and political philosophy, carries personal and political risks as it challenges established beliefs and can lead to a permanent shift in perspective.

Q & A

What is the central dilemma presented in the trolley car thought experiment?

The central dilemma is whether to steer a trolley car onto a side track, killing one worker, but sparing five others on the main track, or to do nothing and let the trolley car kill the five workers on the main track.

What is the moral principle that emerges from the majority's decision in the trolley car thought experiment?

The moral principle that emerges is consequentialist moral reasoning, which suggests that the right action depends on the consequences, in this case, maximizing the number of lives saved.

How does the second trolley car scenario challenge the consequentialist moral principle?

The second scenario, where a bystander must decide whether to push a fat man onto the tracks to save five workers, introduces the idea that the intrinsic quality of the act, such as actively causing harm, might be morally relevant, challenging the purely consequentialist view.

What is the difference between consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning?

Consequentialist moral reasoning focuses on the outcomes or consequences of actions to determine their morality, while categorical moral reasoning is based on absolute moral duties and rights, regardless of the consequences.

Which philosophers are mentioned as the most influential examples of consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning?

Jeremy Bentham is mentioned as the most influential consequentialist, and Emmanuel Kant is mentioned for categorical moral reasoning.

What is the main aim of the course on Justice as described in the transcript?

The main aim of the course is to explore and examine different modes of moral reasoning, such as consequentialism and categorical principles, through the lens of philosophical texts and contemporary political and legal controversies.

What is the significance of the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens case in the discussion of moral philosophy?

The case serves as a real-life example that challenges moral principles and reasoning, particularly the balance between consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning in extreme survival situations.

What are the key moral questions raised by the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens case?

The key moral questions include whether an act of killing is morally justified by necessity and the greater good, whether a fair procedure such as a lottery or consent can make such an act morally permissible, and whether certain moral actions are categorically wrong regardless of the circumstances.

What is the role of consent in the moral evaluation of the actions in the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens case?

The role of consent is a significant point of discussion, with some arguing that if the cabin boy had consented to being sacrificed, the act might be morally permissible, while others maintain that murder is categorically wrong, regardless of consent.

How does the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens case illustrate the tension between personal and political risks in moral philosophy?

The case demonstrates the personal risk of moral philosophy by challenging one's settled beliefs and the political risk by potentially leading to a reevaluation of legal and societal norms regarding actions taken in extremis.

What is the warning issued by the course instructor about the study of moral philosophy?

The warning is that studying moral philosophy may unsettle students by confronting them with what they already know, potentially leading to a loss of innocence and a distancing from established assumptions and settled beliefs.