Course on Justice: Moral Dilemmas and Principles

Course on Justice

• The course explores moral dilemmas and principles, including consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning.
• The instructor presents hypothetical cases, such as the Trolley Car Problem, to stimulate discussion and debate.

Trolley Car Problem

• A driverless trolley car is heading towards five workers on a track, and the only way to save them is to divert it to a side track where one worker is present.
• Most people would divert the trolley car to save the five workers, killing one person.
• The principle behind this decision is that it is better to sacrifice one life to save five.

Alternatives to the Trolley Car Problem

• In a second scenario, an onlooker is standing next to a fat man on a bridge, and the only way to stop the trolley car is to push the fat man onto the track, killing him and saving the five workers.
• In this case, most people would not push the fat man, despite the same principle applying (sacrificing one life to save five).

Doctor and Patient Dilemma

• A doctor has to choose between saving the life of one severely injured patient or saving the lives of five moderately injured patients.
• Most people would choose to save the lives of the five patients.

Transplant Surgeon Dilemma

• A transplant surgeon has five patients in need of organ transplants and can save their lives by killing a healthy person who is about to die anyway.
• Few people would opt to kill the healthy person to save the five patients.

Consequentialist and Categorical Moral Reasoning

• Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act, aiming to maximize utility (happiness) and minimize harm.
• Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in absolute moral requirements and duties, regardless of consequences.

Utilitarianism

• Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism aims to maximize utility (happiness) and minimize pain and suffering.
• The principle of utility is often summed up as "the greatest good for the greatest number."

The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens

• A real-life British law case from the 19th century, in which two sailors were on trial for killing and eating a cabin boy to survive while stranded at sea.
• The case raises questions about the morality of sacrificing one life to save others in extreme circumstances.### The Case of Dudley and Stephens
• In 1884, the Mignonette, a ship with a crew of four, sank in the South Atlantic, leaving the crew members stranded in a lifeboat with limited food and water.
• The crew members were: Captain Dudley, First Mate Stephens, sailor Brooks, and 17-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker.

The Crew's Situation

• For the first three days, the crew had no food and no fresh water.
• On the fourth day, they opened a can of preserved turnips and ate it.
• The next day, they caught a turtle, which enabled them to survive for a few more days.
• After eight days, they had no food and no water, and the crew members were desperate.

The Decision to Kill Parker

• On the nineteenth day, Captain Dudley suggested that they draw lots to see who would be killed to save the rest.
• Brooks refused to participate in the lottery.
• The next day, Captain Dudley told Brooks to look away, and then killed Parker with a pen knife, stabbing him in the jugular vein.

The Aftermath

• The three survivors fed on Parker's body and blood for four days.
• They were eventually rescued by a German ship and taken back to Falmouth, England, where they were arrested and tried.

The Moral Debate

• The question is: was it morally permissible for the crew members to kill Parker in order to save themselves?
• Some arguments in favor of the crew members' actions:
  • They were in a desperate situation and had to do what they had to do to survive.
  • The act of killing Parker was a necessary evil to save three lives.
  • If Parker had given his consent, it would have been morally justified.
• Some arguments against the crew members' actions:
  • Killing Parker was categorically wrong, regardless of the circumstances.
  • The lack of consent and due process makes it a crime.
  • Even if Parker had given his consent, it would still be morally wrong.

Philosophical Questions

• Is it ever morally justified to take a life in order to save others?
• What is the moral significance of consent in such a situation?
• Does the idea of the greater good or utility justify actions that would otherwise be considered wrong?

Course on Justice

• Explores moral dilemmas and principles, including consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning.

The Trolley Car Problem

• A classic thought experiment: a driverless trolley car is heading towards five workers on a track, and the only way to save them is to divert it to a side track where one worker is present.
• Most people would divert the trolley car to save the five workers, killing one person.
• The principle behind this decision is that it is better to sacrifice one life to save five.

Alternatives to the Trolley Car Problem

• A second scenario: an onlooker is standing next to a fat man on a bridge, and the only way to stop the trolley car is to push the fat man onto the track, killing him and saving the five workers.
• In this case, most people would not push the fat man, despite the same principle applying (sacrificing one life to save five).

Doctor and Patient Dilemma

• A doctor has to choose between saving the life of one severely injured patient or saving the lives of five moderately injured patients.
• Most people would choose to save the lives of the five patients.

Transplant Surgeon Dilemma

• A transplant surgeon has five patients in need of organ transplants and can save their lives by killing a healthy person who is about to die anyway.
• Few people would opt to kill the healthy person to save the five patients.

Consequentialist and Categorical Moral Reasoning

• Consequentialist moral reasoning: morality lies in the consequences of an act, aiming to maximize utility (happiness) and minimize harm.
• Categorical moral reasoning: morality lies in absolute moral requirements and duties, regardless of consequences.

Utilitarianism

• Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of utilitarianism: aims to maximize utility (happiness) and minimize pain and suffering.
• The principle of utility is often summed up as "the greatest good for the greatest number."

The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens

• A real-life British law case from the 19th century, in which two sailors were on trial for killing and eating a cabin boy to survive while stranded at sea.
• The case raises questions about the morality of sacrificing one life to save others in extreme circumstances.

The Case of Dudley and Stephens

• In 1884, the Mignonette, a ship with a crew of four, sank in the South Atlantic, leaving the crew members stranded in a lifeboat with limited food and water.
• The crew members were: Captain Dudley, First Mate Stephens, sailor Brooks, and 17-year-old cabin boy Richard Parker.

The Crew's Situation

• For the first three days, the crew had no food and no fresh water.
• On the fourth day, they opened a can of preserved turnips and ate it.
• The next day, they caught a turtle, which enabled them to survive for a few more days.
• After eight days, they had no food and no water, and the crew members were desperate.

The Decision to Kill Parker

• On the nineteenth day, Captain Dudley suggested that they draw lots to see who would be killed to save the rest.
• Brooks refused to participate in the lottery.
• The next day, Captain Dudley told Brooks to look away, and then killed Parker with a pen knife, stabbing him in the jugular vein.

The Aftermath

• The three survivors fed on Parker's body and blood for four days.
• They were eventually rescued by a German ship and taken back to Falmouth, England, where they were arrested and tried.

The Moral Debate

• The question is: was it morally permissible for the crew members to kill Parker in order to save themselves?
• Some arguments in favor of the crew members' actions:
  • They were in a desperate situation and had to do what they had to do to survive.
  • The act of killing Parker was a necessary evil to save three lives.
  • If Parker had given his consent, it would have been morally justified.
• Some arguments against the crew members' actions:
  • The act of killing Parker was morally wrong, regardless of the circumstances.
  • The decision to kill Parker was not justified, as it was a violation of his right to life.

Explore moral dilemmas and principles, including consequentialist and categorical moral reasoning, with hypothetical cases like the Trolley Car Problem. Engage in discussions and debates on justice and ethics.