Bài giảng Công Lý ở ĐH Harvard Tập 1 Phần 1 360p

Summary

The script explores ethical dilemmas surrounding life and death decisions through various moral scenarios. It begins with the classic trolley problem, where the protagonist must decide whether to divert a runaway trolley to save five workers at the cost of one. The discussion extends to another variation, where the protagonist must decide whether to push a fat man to his death to save others, and further examines the implications of consequentialism versus active moral choices. These moral dilemmas prompt an engaging debate about the consequences of actions and the ethical principles governing life-saving decisions.

Takeaways

• 😀 The trolley problem is a thought experiment that challenges the concept of moral decision-making when lives are at stake.
• 😀 The initial dilemma involves a runaway trolley headed toward five workers, with a choice to divert it to kill one worker instead of five.
• 😀 Most participants in the experiment endorse the principle that it's better to kill one person to save five, based on utilitarian reasoning.
• 😀 The second dilemma involves a scenario where the person must push a fat man onto the tracks to save the five workers, raising ethical concerns about direct action.
• 😀 A major contrast between the two situations is the act of 'doing' versus 'allowing'—turning the trolley is seen as less morally culpable than directly pushing someone.
• 😀 The second case prompts questions about whether intervening directly (pushing the fat man) is morally worse than merely steering the trolley.
• 😀 The discussion highlights that moral intuitions can differ significantly between actions that involve passive choices and those that require active intervention.
• 😀 In medical cases, a similar moral dilemma arises when doctors must decide whether to save five patients at the expense of one severely injured person.
• 😀 The transplant surgeon dilemma introduces a new layer, where one could sacrifice a healthy person to save five others, raising further ethical complexities.
• 😀 The moral principle that emerges from the discussion is that decisions should focus on the consequences of actions (utilitarianism) versus the inherent morality of the action itself (deontology).

Q & A

What is the initial dilemma presented in the trolley problem scenario?

The dilemma involves a trolley car speeding down a track toward five workers. The driver cannot stop, but can divert the trolley to a side track where one worker is present. The driver must choose whether to kill one person to save five others, or to do nothing and allow five to die.

What moral principle do most participants support in the first scenario (steering the trolley)?

Most participants support the principle of utilitarianism, which suggests that the right thing to do is to save the greater number of lives (five) even if it means sacrificing one life.

What reason does one participant give for choosing not to divert the trolley?

One participant argues that the decision to sacrifice one life to save others can lead to dangerous moral reasoning, such as justifying genocide or totalitarianism. They suggest it could lead to the idea that it’s acceptable to kill a group in order to save another group.

How does the second scenario (pushing the fat man off the bridge) differ from the first in terms of moral choice?

In the second scenario, the individual is not controlling the trolley but is an observer. They have the option to push a fat man onto the tracks to stop the trolley, thereby saving five lives. This involves a direct action, which many participants find morally more difficult compared to diverting the trolley.

Why do some people feel it is wrong to push the fat man, even if it saves five lives?

Many participants feel that pushing the fat man is morally wrong because it involves an active choice to kill him, whereas the trolley problem with the switch is seen as a more passive decision. The moral discomfort comes from the direct involvement in causing someone's death.

How does the concept of agency play a role in these moral decisions?

Agency refers to the role the decision-maker plays in the outcome. In the first scenario, where the driver simply diverts the trolley, participants feel less personally responsible for the deaths. However, in the second scenario, where the individual must physically push someone, the act feels more directly personal, leading to stronger moral objections.

How does the role of the observer change people's moral decisions in the second scenario?

In the second scenario, the observer's role as a passive bystander changes how they view the action. Many feel that taking an active role in someone's death (even for a greater good) is morally unacceptable, even if the result is the same—saving five lives.

What argument is made about the difference between active and passive moral choices?

The argument is that actively causing harm (e.g., pushing someone onto the tracks) is morally worse than a passive action (e.g., diverting a trolley). The distinction lies in the perceived directness of the harm and personal involvement in the act.

In the medical scenarios, what ethical dilemma do the doctors face?

The doctors face situations where they must decide whether to save five patients with moderate injuries at the cost of letting one critically injured person die, or to focus on saving the one patient, resulting in the deaths of five others.

What moral reasoning do most people follow when making medical decisions, such as in the transplant case?

Most people follow utilitarian reasoning, choosing to save the greater number of lives (e.g., saving five patients by sacrificing one) as the morally preferable option, even though the act of directly causing someone's death feels more morally problematic.