Funding for this program is provided by:
Additional funding provided by
This is a course about Justice and we begin
with a story
suppose you're the driver of a trolley car,
and your trolley car is hurdling down
the track at sixty miles an hour
and at the end of the track you notice
five workers working on the track
you tried to stop but you can't
your brakes don't work
you feel desperate because you know
that if you crash into these five workers
they will all die
let's assume you know that for sure
and so you feel helpless
until you notice that there is
off to the right
a side track
at the end of that track
there's one worker
working on track
you're steering wheel works
so you can
turn the trolley car if you want to
onto this side track
killing the one
but sparing the five.
Here's our first question
what's the right thing to do?
What would you do?
Let's take a poll,
how many
would turn the trolley car onto the side track?
How many wouldn't?
How many would go straight ahead
keep your hands up, those of you who'd go straight
ahead.
A handful of people would, the vast majority
would turn
let's hear first
now we need to begin to investigate the reasons
why you think
it's the right thing to do. Let's begin with
those in the majority, who would turn
to go onto side track?
Why would you do it,
what would be your reason?
Who's willing to volunteer a reason?
Go ahead, stand up.
Because it can't be right to kill five people
when you can only kill one person instead.
it wouldn't be right to kill five
if you could kill one person instead
that's a good reason
that's a good reason
who else?
does everybody agree with that
reason? go ahead.
Well I was thinking it was the same reason it was on
9/11 we regard the people who flew the plane
who flew the plane into the
Pennsylvania field as heroes
because they chose to kill the people on the
plane
and not kill more people
in big buildings.
So the principle there was the same on 9/11
it's tragic circumstance,
but better to kill one so that five can
live
is that the reason most of you have, those
of you who would turn, yes?
Let's hear now
from
those in the minority
those who wouldn't turn. 
Well I think that same type of mentality that
justifies genocide and totalitarianism
in order to save one type of race you
wipe out the other.
so what would you do in this case? You would
to avoid
the horrors of genocide
you would crash into the five and kill them?
Presumably yes.
okay who else?
That's a brave answer, thank you.
Let's consider another
trolley car case
and see
whether
those of you in the majority
want to adhere to the principle,
better that one should die so that five
should live.
This time you're not the driver of the trolley
car, you're an onlooker
standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track
and down the track comes a trolley car
at the end of the track are five workers
the brakes don't work
the trolley car is about to careen into the
five and kill them
and now
you're not the driver
you really feel helpless
until you notice
standing next to you
leaning over
the bridge
is it very fat man.
And you could
give him a shove
he would fall over the bridge
onto the track
right in the way of
the trolley car
he would die
but he would spare the five.
Now, how many would push
the fat man over the bridge? Raise your hand. 
How many wouldn't?
Most people wouldn't.
Here's the obvious question,
what became
of the principle
better to save five lives even if it means
sacrificing one, what became of the principal
that almost everyone endorsed
in the first case
I need to hear from someone who was in the
majority in both
cases is
how do you explain the difference between
the two?
The second one I guess involves an
active choice of 
pushing a person
and down which
I guess that
that person himself would otherwise not 
have been involved in the situation at all
and so
to choose on his behalf I guess
to 
involve him in something that he otherwise would
have this escaped is
I guess more than
what you have in the first case where
the three parties, the driver and
the two sets of workers are
already I guess in this situation.
but the guy working, the one on the track
off to the side
he didn't choose to sacrifice his life any
more than the fat guy did, did he?
That's true, but he was on the tracks.
this guy was on the bridge.
Go ahead, you can come back if you want.
Alright, it's a hard question
but you did well you did very well it's a
hard question.
who else
can
find a way of reconciling
the reaction of the majority in these two cases? Yes?
Well I guess
in the first case where
you have the one worker and the five
it's a  choice between those two, and you have to 
make a certain choice and people are going to die 
because of the trolley car 
not necessarily because of your direct actions.
The trolley car is a runway,
thing and you need to make in a split second choice
whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual
act of murder on your part
you have control over that
whereas you may not have control over the trolley car.
So I think that it's a slightly different situation.
Alright who has a reply? Is that, who has a reply to that? 
no that was good, who has a way
who wants to reply?
Is that a way out of this?
I don't think that's a very good reason because
you choose
either way you have to choose who dies
because you either choose to turn and kill a person
which is an act of conscious
thought to turn,
or you choose to push the fat man 
over which is also an active
conscious action so either way you're making a choice.
Do you want to reply?
Well I'm not really sure that that's the case, it just still
seems kind of different, the act of actually
pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing them,
you are actually killing him yourself, you're pushing
him with your own hands you're pushing and 
that's different
than steering something that is going to
cause death
into another...you know
it doesn't really sound right saying it now when I'm up here.
No that's good, what's your name?
Andrew. 
Andrew and let me ask you this question Andrew,
suppose
standing on the bridge
next to the fat man
I didn't have to push him, suppose he was standing
over a trap door that I could open by turning
a steering wheel like that
would you turn it?
For some reason that still just seems more 
more wrong.
I mean maybe if you just accidentally like leaned into
this steering wheel or something like that
or but, 
or say that the car is 
hurdling towards a switch that will drop the trap
then I could agree with that.
Fair enough, it still seems 
wrong in a way that it doesn't seem wrong in the
first case to turn, you say
An in another way, I mean in the first situation you're
involved directly with the situation
in the second one you're an onlooker as well.
So you have the choice of becoming involved
or not by pushing the fat man.
Let's forget for the moment about this case,
that's good,
but let's imagine a different case. This time
your doctor in an emergency room
and six patients come to you
they've been in a terrible trolley car wreck
five of them sustained moderate injuries one
is severely injured you could spend all day
caring for the one severely injured victim,
but in that time the five would die, or you could
look after the five, restore them to health, but
during that time the one severely injured
person would die.
How many would save 
the five
now as the doctor?
How many would save the one?
Very few people,
just a handful of people.
Same reason I assume,
one life versus five.
Now consider
another doctor case
this time you're a transplant surgeon
and you have five patients each in desperate
need
of an organ transplant in order to survive
on needs a heart one a lung,
one a kidney, 
one a liver
and the fifth
a pancreas.
And you have no organ donors
you are about to
see you them die
and then
it occurs to you
that in the next room
there's a healthy guy who came in for a checkup.
and he is
you like that
and he's taking a nap
you could go in very quietly
yank out the five organs, that person would
die
but you can save the five.
How many would do it? Anyone?
How many? Put your hands up if you would do it.
Anyone in the balcony?
You would? Be careful don't lean over too much
How many wouldn't?
All right.
What do you say, speak up in the balcony, you
who would
yank out the organs, why?
I'd actually like to explore slightly alternate
possibility of just taking the one
of the five he needs an organ who dies first
and using their four healthy organs to save the other
four
That's a pretty good idea.
That's a great idea
except for the fact
that you just wrecked the philosophical point.
Let's step back
from these stories and these arguments
to notice a couple of things
about the way the arguments have began to unfold.
Certain
moral principles
have already begun to emerge
from the discussions we've had
and let's consider
what those moral principles
look like
the first moral principle that emerged from the 
discussion said
that the right thing to do the moral thing to do
depends on the consequences that will result
from your action
at the end of the day
better that five should live
even if one must die.
That's an example
of consequentialist
moral reasoning.
consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality
in the consequences of an act. In the state of the 
world that will result 
from the thing you do
but then we went a little further, we considered
those other cases
and people weren't so sure 
about
consequentialist moral reasoning
when people hesitated
to push the fat man
over the bridge
or to yank out the organs of the innocent
patient
people gestured towards
reasons
having to do
with the intrinsic
quality of the act
itself.
Consequences be what they may.
People were reluctant
people thought it was just wrong
categorically wrong
to kill
a person
an innocent person
even for the sake
of saving
five lives, at least these people thought that
in the second
version of each story we reconsidered
so this points
a second
categorical
way
of thinking about
moral reasoning
categorical moral reasoning locates morality
in certain absolute moral requirements in
certain categorical duties and rights
regardless of the consequences.
We're going to explore
in the days and weeks to come the contrast
between
consequentialist and categorical moral principles.
The most influential
example of
consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism,
a doctrine invented by
Jeremy Bentham, the eighteenth century English
political philosopher.
The most important
philosopher of categorical moral reasoning
is the
eighteenth century German philosopher
Emmanuel Kant.
So we will look
at those two different modes of moral reasoning
assess them
and also consider others.
If you look at the syllabus, you'll notice
that we read a number of great and famous books.
Books by Aristotle
John Locke
Emanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill,
and others.
You'll notice too from the syllabus that
we don't only read these books,
we also all
take up
contemporary political and legal controversies
that raise philosophical questions.
We will debate equality and inequality,
affirmative action,
free speech versus hate speech,
same sex marriage, military conscription,
a range of practical questions, why
not just to enliven these abstract and distant
books
but to make clear to bring out what's at stake
in our everyday lives including our political
lives,
for philosophy.
So we will read these books
and we will debate these
issues and we'll see how each informs and
illuminates the other.
This may sound appealing enough
but here
I have to issue a warning,
and the warning is this
to read these books
in this way,
as an exercise in self-knowledge,
to read them in this way carry certain risks
risks that are both personal and political,
risks that every student of political philosophy have known.
These risks spring from that fact
that philosophy
teaches us
and unsettles us
by confronting us with what we already know.
There's an irony
the difficulty of this course consists in the
fact that it teaches what you already know.
It works by taking
what we know from familiar unquestioned settings,
and making it strange.
That's how those examples worked
worked
the hypotheticals with which we began with their
mix of playfulness and sobriety.
it's also how these philosophical books work. Philosophy 
estranges us
from the familiar
not by supplying new information
but by inviting
and provoking
a new way of seeing
but, and here's the risk,
once
the familiar turns strange,
it's never quite the same again.
Self-knowledge
is like lost innocence,
however unsettling
you find it,
it can never
be unthought
or unknown
what makes this enterprise difficult
but also riveting,
is that
moral and political philosophy is a story
and you don't know where this story will lead
but what you do know
is that the story
is about you.
Those are the personal risks,
now what of the political risks.
one way of introducing of course like this
would be to promise you
that by reading these books
and debating these issues
you will become a better more responsible
citizen.
You will examine the presuppositions of
public policy, you will hone your political
judgment
you'll become a more effective participant
in public affairs
but this would be a partial and misleading promise
political philosophy for the most part hasn't
worked that way.
You have to allow for the possibility
that political philosophy may make you a worse
citizen
rather than a better one
or at least a worse citizen
before it makes you
a better one
and that's because philosophy
is a distancing
even debilitating
activity
And you see this
going back to Socrates
there's a dialogue, the Gorgias
in which one of Socrates’ friends
Calicles
tries to talk him out
of philosophizing.
calicles tells Socrates philosophy is a pretty toy
if one indulges in it with moderation at
the right time of life
but if one pursues it further than one should
it is absolute ruin.
Take my advice calicles says,
abandon argument
learn the accomplishments of active
life, take
for your models not those people who spend
their time on these petty quibbles,
but those who have a good livelihood and reputation
and many other blessings.
So Calicles is really saying to Socrates
quit philosophizing,
get real
go to business school
and calicles did have a point
he had a point
because philosophy distances us
from conventions from established assumptions
and from settled beliefs.
those are the risks,
personal and political
and in the face of these risks there is a
characteristic evasion,
the name of the evasion is skepticism. It's
the idea
well it goes something like this
we didn't resolve, once and for all,
either the cases or the principles we were
arguing when we began
and if Aristotle
and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions
after all of these years
who are we to think
that we here in Sanders Theatre over the
course a semester
can resolve them
and so maybe it's just a matter of
each person having his or her own principles
and there's nothing more to be said about
it
no way of reasoning
that's the
evasion. The evasion of skepticism 
to which I would offer the following
reply:
it's true
these questions have been debated for a very
long time
but the very fact
that they have reoccurred and persisted
may suggest
that though they're impossible in one sense
their unavoidable in another
and the reason they're unavoidable
the reason they're inescapable is that we live
some answer
to these questions every day.
So skepticism, just throwing up their hands
and giving up on moral reflection,
is no solution
Emanuel Kant
described very well the problem with skepticism
when he wrote
skepticism is a resting place for human reason 
where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings
but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement.
Simply to acquiesce in skepticism, Kant wrote,
can never suffice to overcome the restless
of reason.
I've tried to suggest through theses stories
and these arguments
some sense of the risks and temptations
of the perils and the possibilities I would
simply conclude by saying
that the aim of this course
is to awaken
the restlessness of reason
and to see where it might lead
thank you very much.
Like, in a situation that desperate,
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
What you 
gotta do. pretty much, 
If you've been going nineteen days without any food
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.
Marcus, what do you say to Marcus?
Last time
we started out last time
with some stores
with some moral dilemmas
about trolley cars
and about doctors
and healthy patients
vulnerable
to being victims of organ transplantation
we noticed two things
about the arguments we had
one had to do with the way we were arguing
it began with our judgments in particular cases
we tried to articulate the reasons or the
principles
lying behind our judgments
and then confronted with a new case
we found ourselves re-examining those principles
revising each in the light of the other
and we noticed the built-in pressure to try
to bring into alignment
our judgments about particular cases
and the principles we would endorse
on reflection
we also noticed something about the substance
of the arguments
that emerged from the discussion.
We noticed that sometimes we were tempted
to locate the morality of an act in the consequences
in the results, in the state of the world that
it brought about.
We called is consequentialist
moral reason.
But we also noticed that
in some cases
we weren't swayed only 
by the results
sometimes,
many of us felt,
that not just consequences but also the intrinsic
quality or character of the act
matters morally.
Some people argued that there are certain things
that are just categorically wrong
even if they bring about
a good result
even
if they save five people
at the cost of one life.
So we contrasted consequentialist
moral principles
with categorical ones.
Today
and in the next few days
we will begin to examine one of the
most influential
versions of consequentialist
moral theory
and that's the philosophy of utilitarianism.
Jeremy Bentham,
the eighteenth century
English political philosopher
gave first
the first clear systematic expression
to the utilitarian
moral theory.
And Bentham's idea,
his essential idea
is a very simple one
with a lot of 
morally
intuitive appeal.
Bentham's idea is
the following
the right thing to do
the just thing to do
it's to
maximize
utility.
What did he mean by utility?
He meant by utility the balance
of pleasure over pain,
happiness over suffering.
Here's how we arrived 
at the principle
of maximizing utility.
He started out by observing
that all of us
all human beings
are governed by two sovereign masters,
pain and pleasure.
We human beings
like pleasure and dislike pain
and so we should base morality
whether we are thinking of what to do in our own lives
or whether
as legislators or citizens
we are thinking about what the law should be,
the right thing to do individually or collectively
is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes
the overall level
of happiness.
Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summed
up with the slogan
the greatest good for the greatest number.
With this
basic principle of utility on hand,
let's begin to test it and to examine it
by turning to another case
another story but this time
not a hypothetical story,
a real-life story
the case of
the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens.
This was a nineteenth-century British law case
that's famous
and much debated in law schools.
Here's what happened in the case
I'll summarize the story
and then I want to hear
how you would rule
imagining that you are the jury.
A newspaper account of the time
described the background:
A sadder story of disaster at sea
was never told
than that of the survivors of the yacht
Mignonette.
The ship foundered in the south Atlantic
thirteen hundred miles from the cape
there were four in the crew,
Dudley was the captain
Stephens was the first mate
Brooks was a sailor,
all men of
excellent character,
or so the newspaper account
tells us.
The fourth crew member was the cabin boy,
Richard Parker
seventeen years old.
He was an orphan
he had no family
and he was on his first long voyage at sea.
He went, the news account tells us,
rather against the advice of his friends.
He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition
thinking the journey would make a man of him.
Sadly it was not to be,
the facts of the case were not in dispute,
a wave hit the ship
and the Mignonette went down.
The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat
the only
food they had
were two
cans of preserved
turnips
no fresh water
for the first three days they ate nothing
on the fourth day that opened one of the cans of
turnips
and ate it.
The next day they caught a turtle
together with the other can of turnips 
the turtle
enabled them to subsist
for the next few days and then for eight days
they had nothing
no food no water.
Imagine yourself in a situation like that
what would you do?
Here's what they did
by now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the
bottom of the lifeboat in a corner
because he had drunk sea water
against the advice of the others
and he had become ill
and he appeared to be dying
so on the nineteenth day Dudley, the captain, suggested
that they should all
have a lottery. That they should
all draw lots to see
who would die
to save the rest.
Brooks
refused
he didn't like the lottery idea
we don't know whether this
was because he didn't want to take that chance
or because he believed in categorical moral
principles
but in any case
no lots were drawn.
The next day
there was still no ship in sight
so a Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze 
and he motioned to Stephens
that the boy Parker had better be killed.
Dudley offered a prayer
he told a the boy his time had come
and he killed him with a pen knife
stabbing him in the jugular vein.
Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection
to share in the gruesome bounty.
For four days
the three of them fed on the body and blood
of the cabin boy.
True story.
And then they were rescued.
Dudley describes their rescue
in his diary
with staggering euphemism, quote:
"on the twenty fourth day
as we were having our breakfast
a ship appeared at last."
The three survivors were picked up by a German ship.
They were taken back to Falmouth in England
where they were arrested and tried
Brooks
turned state's witness
Dudley and Stephens went to trial. They didn't
dispute the facts
they claimed
they had acted out of necessity
that was their defense
they argued in effect
better that one should die
so that three could survive
the prosecutor
wasn't swayed by that argument
he said murder is murder
and so the case went to trial. Now imagine
you are the jury
and just to simplify the discussion
put aside the question of law,
and let's assume that
you as the jury
are charged with deciding
whether what they did was morally
permissible or not.
How many
would vote
not guilty, that what they did was morally
permissible?
And how many would vote guilty
what they did was morally wrong?
A pretty sizable majority.
Now let's see what people's reasons are, and let me
begin with those who are in the minority.
Let's hear first from the defense
of Dudley and Stephens.
Why would you morally exonerate them?
What are your reasons?
I think it's I think it is morally reprehensible
but I think that there's a distinction between
what's morally reprehensible
what makes someone legally accountable
in other words the night as the judge said
what's  always moral isn't necessarily
against the law and while I don't think that
necessity
justifies
theft or murder any illegal act, 
at some point your degree of necessity does
in fact
exonerate you form any guilt. ok.
other defenders, other voices for the defense?
Moral justifications for
what they did?
yes, thank you
I just feel like 
in a situation that desperate you have to do
what you have to do to survive.
You have to do what you have to do
ya, you gotta do what you gotta do, pretty much.
If you've been
going nineteen days without any food
you know someone just has to take the sacrifice
has to make sacrifices and people can survive
and furthermore from that
let's say they survived and then they become productive
members of society who go home and then start like
a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that,
I mean they benefit everybody in the end so
I mean I don't know what they did afterwards, I mean
they might have
gone on and killed more people
but whatever.
what? what if they were going home and turned out to be assassins?
What if they were going home and turned out to be assassins?
You would want to know who they assassinated.
That's true too, that's fair
I would wanna know who they assassinated.
alright that's good, what's your name? Marcus.
We've heard a defense
a couple voices for the defense
now we need to hear
from the prosecution
most people think
what they did was wrong, why?
One of the first things that I was thinking was, oh well if they  
haven't been eating for a really long time, 
maybe
then
they're mentally affected
that could be used for the defense, 
a possible argument that oh,
that they weren't in a proper state of mind, they were making
decisions that they otherwise wouldn't be making, and if that's an  
appealing argument
that you have to be in an altered mindset to do something
like that it suggests that
people who find that argument convincing
do you think that they're acting immorally.
But I want to know what you think you're defending
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 
appropriate way. And why not? What do you say,
Here's Marcus
he just defended them,
he said,
you heard what he said,
yes I did
yes
that you've got to do what you've got to do in a
case like that.
What do you say to Marcus?
They didn't,
that there is no situation that would allow human
beings to take 
the idea of fate or the other people's
lives into their own hands that we don't have
that kind of power.
Good, okay
thanks you, and what's your name?
Britt? okay.
who else?
What do you say? Stand up
I'm wondering if Dudley and Stephens had asked for Richard Parker's  
consent in, you know, dying, 
if that would
would that exonerate them
from an act of murder, and if so is that still morally
justifiable?
That's interesting, alright consent, now hang on, what's your name?
Kathleen.
Kathleen says suppose so what would that scenario look like?
so in the story
Dudley is there, pen knife in hand,
but instead of the prayer
or before the prayer,
he says, Parker,
would you mind
we're desperately hungry,
as Marcus empathizes with
we're desperately hungry
you're not going to last long anyhow,
you can be a martyr,
would you be a martyr
how about it Parker?
Then, then
then what do you think, would
be morally justified then? Suppose
Parker
in his semi-stupor 
says okay
 I don't think it'll be morally justifiable but I'm wondering.
Even then, even then it wouldn't be? No
You don't think that even with consent
it would be morally justified.
Are there people who think
who want to take up Kathleen's 
consent idea
and who think that that would make it
morally justified? Raise your hand if it would
if you think it would.
That's very interesting
Why would consent 
make a moral difference? Why would it?
Well I just think that if he was making his own original
idea
and it was his idea to start with
then that would be the only situation in which I
would
see it being appropriate in anyway
 
0:40:25.940,0:40:28.359
because that way you couldn't make the argument
that
he was pressured you know it’s three
to one or whatever the ratio was,
and I think that
if he was making a decision to give his life
then he took on the agency
to sacrifice himself which some 
people might see as admirable and other people
 might disagree with that decision.
So if he came up with the idea
that's the only kind of consent we could have
confidence in
morally, then it would be okay
otherwise
it would be kind of coerced consent
under the circumstances
you think.
Is there anyone who thinks
that the even the consent of Parker
would not justify
their killing him?
Who thinks that?
Yes, tell us why, stand up
I think that Parker
would be killed
with the hope that the other crew members
would be rescued so
there's no definite reason that he should
be killed
because you don't know 
when they're going to get rescued so if you kill him you're killing him  
in vain
do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued and then you're  
left with no one?
because someone's going to die eventually?
Well the moral logic of the situation seems to
be that.
That they would
keep on picking off the weakest maybe, one by
one,
until they were
rescued and in this case luckily when three at least were still alive.
Now if
if Parker did give his consent
would it be all right do you think or not?
No, it still wouldn't be right.
Tell us why wouldn't be all right.
First of all, cannibalism, I believe
is morally incorrect
so you shouldn’t be eating a human anyway.
So
cannibalism is morally objectionable outside
so then even in the scenario
of waiting until someone died
still it would be objectionable.
Yes, to me personally
I feel like of
it all depends on
one's personal morals, like we can't just, like this is just my opinion
of course other people are going to disagree.
Well let's see, let's hear what their disagreements
are
and then we'll see
if they have reasons
that can persuade you or not.
Let's try that
Let's
now is there someone
who can explain, those of you who are tempted
by consent
can you explain
why consent makes
such a moral difference,
what about the lottery idea
does that count as consent. Remember at
the beginning
Dudley proposed a lottery
suppose that they had agreed
to a lottery
then
how many would then say
it was all right. Say there was a lottery,
cabin boy lost,
and the rest of the story unfolded. How
many people would say it's morally permissible?
So the numbers are rising if we add a lottery,
let's hear from one of you
for whom the lottery would make a moral difference
why would it?
I think the essential
element,
in my mind that makes it a crime is
the idea that they decided at some point that
their lives were more important than his, and that
I mean that's kind of the basis for really
any crime
right? It's like
my needs, my desire is a more important than yours
and mine take precedent
and if they had done a lottery were everyone
consented
that someone should die
and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing 
themselves,
to save the rest,
Then it would be all right?
A little grotesque but,
But morally permissible? Yes.
what's your name? Matt.
so, Matt for you
what bothers you is not
the cannibalism, but the lack of due process.
I guess you could say that
And can someone who agrees with Matt
say a little bit more
about why 
a lottery
would make it, in your view,
morally permissible.
The way I understood it originally was that that was the
whole issue is that the cabin boy was never
consulted
about whether or not it something was going
to happen to him even though with the original
lottery
whether or not he would be a part of that
it was just decided
that he was the one that was going to die. 
Yes that's what happened in the actual case
but if there were a lottery and they all agreed
to the procedure
you think that would be okay?
Right, because everyone knows that there's gonna be
a death
whereas
you know the cabin boy didn't know that
this discussion was even happening
there was no
you know forewarning
for him to know that hey, I may be the one
that's dying. Okay, now suppose the everyone agrees
to the lottery they have the lottery the cabin
boy loses any changes his mind.
You've already decided, it's like a verbal contract, you can't go back  
on that. You've decided the decision was made
you know if you know you're dying for the 
 reason for at others to live,
you would, you know
if the someone else had died
you know that you would consume them, so
But then he could say I know, but I lost.
I just think that that's the whole moral issue is that there was
no consulting of the cabin boy and that that's
what makes it the most horrible
is that he had no idea what was even
going on, that if he had known what was going on
it would
be a bit more understandable.
Alright, good, now I want to hear
so there's some who think
it's morally permissible
but only about twenty percent,
led by Marcus,
then there are some who say
the real problem here
is the lack of consent
whether the lack of consent to a lottery to
a fair procedure
or
Kathleen's idea,
lack of consent
at the moment
of death
and if we add consent
then
more people are willing to consider
the sacrifice morally justified.
I want to hear now finally
from those of you who think
even with consent
even with a lottery
even with
a final 
murmur of consent from Parker
at the
very last moment
it would still
be wrong
and why would it be wrong
that's what I want to hear.
well the whole time
I've been leaning towards the categorical moral reasoning
and I think that
there's a possibility I'd be okay with the
idea of the lottery and then loser
taking into their own hands to
kill themselves
so there wouldn't be an act of murder but
I still think that
even that way it's coerced and also I don't
think that there's any remorse like in
Dudley's diary
we're getting our breakfast
it seems as though he's just sort of like, oh,
you know that whole idea of not valuing someone else's life
so that makes me
feel like I have to take the categorical stance. You want to throw the  
book at him.
when he lacks remorse or a sense of having done
anything wrong. Right.
Alright, good so are there any other
defenders who
who say it's just categorically wrong, with or without consent, yes  
stand up. Why?
 I think undoubtedly the way our society is shaped, murder
is murder
murder is murder and every way our society looks down at it in the same  
light
and I don't think it's any different in any case. Good now let 
me ask you a question,
there were three lives at stake
versus one,
the one, that the cabin boy, he  had no family
he had no dependents,
these other three had families back home
in England they had dependents
they had wives and children
think back to Bentham,
Bentham says we have to consider
the welfare, the utility, the happiness
of everybody. We have to add it all up
so it's not just numbers three against one
it's also all of those people at home
in fact the London newspaper at the time
and popular opinion sympathized with them
Dudley in Stephens
and the paper said if they weren't
motivated
by affection
and concern for their loved ones at
home and dependents, surely they wouldn't have
done this. Yeah, and how is that any different from people
on the corner
trying to having the same desire to feed their family,
I don't think it's any different. I think in any case
if I'm murdering you to advance my status, that's murder and I think  
that we should look at all
of that in the same light. Instead of criminalizing certain
activities
and making certain things seem more
violent and savage
when in that same case it's all the same act and mentality 
that goes into the murder, a necessity
to feed their families.
Suppose there weren't three, supposed there were thirty,
three hundred,
one life to save three hundred
or in more time,
three thousand
or suppose the stakes were even bigger.
Suppose the stakes were even bigger
I think it's still the same deal.
Do you think Bentham was wrong to say the right thing
to do
is to add
up the collected happiness, you think he's
wrong about that?
I don't think he is wrong, but I think murder is murder in any case.
Well then Bentham has to be wrong
if you're right he's wrong. okay then he's wrong.
Alright thank you, well done.
Alright, let's step back
from this discussion
and notice
how many objections have we heard to what they did.
we heard some defenses of what they did
the defense has had to do with 
necessity
the dire circumstance and,
implicitly at least,
the idea that numbers matter
and not only numbers matter
but the wider effects matter
their families back home, their dependents
Parker was an orphan,
no one would miss him.
so if you
add up
if you tried to calculate
the balance
of happiness and suffering
you might have a case for 
saying what they did was the right thing
then we heard at least three different types
of objections,
we heard an objection that's said
what they did was categorically wrong,
right here at the end
categorically wrong.
Murder is murder it's always wrong
even if
it increases the overall happiness
of society
the categorical objection.
But we still need to investigate
why murder
is categorically wrong.
Is it because
even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights?
And if that's the reason
where do those rights come from if not from
some idea
of the larger welfare or utility or happiness?
Question number one.
Others said
a lottery would make a difference
a fair procedure,
Matt said.
And some people were swayed by that.
That's not a categorical objection exactly
it's saying
everybody has to be counted as an equal
even though, at the end of the day
one can be sacrificed
for the general welfare.
That leaves us with another question to investigate,
Why does agreement to certain procedure, 
even a fair procedure,
justify whatever result flows
from the operation of that procedure?
Question number two.
and question number three
the basic idea of consent.
Kathleen got us on to this.
If the cabin boy had agreed himself
and not under duress
as was added
then it would be all right to take his life 
to save the rest.
Even more people signed on to that idea
but that raises
a third philosophical question
what is the moral work
that consent
does?
Why does an act of consent
make such a moral difference
that an act that would be wrong, taking a life,
without consent
is morally
permissible
with consent?
To investigate those three questions
we're going to have to read some philosophers
and starting next time
we're going to read
Bentham,
and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers.
Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers
of Justice
join the conversation,
take a pop quiz, watch lectures you've missed, and a lot more. Visit  
www.justiceharvard.org. It's the right thing to do.
Funding for the program is provided by 
Additional funding provided by
