This lecture was very entertaining as well as informative. The examples that Michael Sandel opened with perfectly illustrated the points that he was trying to make about determining what is morally acceptable. In one situation, sure, most people would choose to kill one person over killing five people (based on what the consequences would be they chose this action), but when a variable changes, most people believe that it is more morally permissible to allow the five to be killed rather than to kill the one by their own hand. I agreed with the majority in every situation, but I can definitely understand how that can seem almost hypocritical. However, when the situations are changed, what I believed would be morally right also changed. Pushing a person over the bridge who would have have been involved in the accident does not seem morally acceptable (so five people would be killed), but if I was a driver then I would have hit the one person instead of taking five lives (so only one would die). This was the same for the hospital situation. I believe that killing a healthy person is not morally acceptable even though he could save five lives of people who need transplants. For you to involve a person who would not be part of the situation (even though it would save more lives) is in my opinion wrong. Saving the five people instead of the one critically injured patient however, is morally right. All of this led into the discussion about moral reasoning and the differences between consequentialists and the categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning. Kant used the categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning which I can agree with (killing one innocent person for the sake of saving five is morally wrong). No matter what the consequences are, morality is present in certain duties. Even if the results are good, it could still be morally unacceptable to choose that action. I was conflicted with the cannibalism case. Bentham thought that the right thing to do is to maximize utility (the greatest good for the greatest number). I believe that the three surviving with one life being lost is maximizing utility, but what the three did was not morally permissible because there was no consent of the fourth. The lottery system I do believe would have been acceptable because they were all starving, and all four could have died without any food. However, they murdered the boy, and there is a case of cannibalism. I think that people do have certain fundamental rights. The boy did not want to be killed (even though he knew that he might die), and so he was murdered. So, although having three survive does, in my opinion, do the greatest good for the greatest number, consent would have made this act more morally permissible.
While I agreed with the consequential reasoners of the audience (killing the one man versus killing the larger number (no matter the situation)), I also see the more personal harm done when this decision is made. While "a greatest good for a greater number," as Sandel defines, is accomplished, the smaller number that is killed still affects a certain population of people. In compliance with my personal stance, I believe that killing the majority in order to benefit the minority is morally wrong. I believe that murder of all sorts is unethical, but I do believe that some of the murders in these particular situations are justifiable. Killing one track worker versus the five? Justifiable. Allowing one patient to die in order to properly treat five patients? Justifiable. On the flipside, just as the majority of the lecture hall was, I was very conflicted on how to feel about pushing the man over the bridge and the cannibalism case. While pushing a man over the bridge in order to save the trolley's population is no different than choosing to steer the trolly into one worker versus the five, the act of physically pushing the man over the bridge (a point one student in the audience brought up) is an act that is more personally guilt-ridden (in my eyes) that steering a trolley into a worker. Why this is, I'm unsure, but it was refreshing to see that my opinion wasn't met alone. In the cannibalism case, while I'm not a personal advocate of cannibalism, I understand the logic and desperation behind the murder of the cabin boy. I do, however, agree with Kathleen in her saying that consent from the cabin boy for his sacrifice or, as Matt said, a fair lottery of all of the crew members, would have made the cabin boy's murder more morally comfortable in the eyes of a larger majority. The moral work of consent is one of wonders: moral consent not only makes murder and other crimes logical in the murder's eyes, but the victims as well, being the victim themselves or the families/loved ones of the actual victim.
I agree with Emily that this was a very entertaining lecture and that it gave me some insight and even challenged some of my own morals. I believe that every human being is born with the right to life and what we do with our life is a result of choices we make. The only fundamental right that we have is the right to life in my opinion. Healthcare, education, nourishment, and clean water, are things that we must earn, find, or be able to gain access to on our own. As harsh as that sounds, life is the only right that everyone truly is born with. However, in my opinion, the right to life includes everything that we need to survive until we are old enough to access and utilize these things on our own. This puts the responsibility of our lives onto those who conceived us and/or our guardians. This is why I believe abortion is wrong. To get back on the episode, it is of my belief that the act of conscientiously and purposefully taking a life is not ultimately our choice, but God’s (I am Roman Catholic). However, in some cases, I find this belief challenged. For example, the lottery idea presented in the cannibalism case really tempted me into believing that sparing three lives for the price of one would be morally justifiable. This has a few conditions though. Each person concerned must give consent to the lottery idea and must have the same chance of winning as everyone else. With full consent and equality of chances, I almost would have to sympathize and give into the temptation that it would be justified. This is because that consent is agreeing that you don’t see your life as any more important that anyone else’s and that if you lose, you are doing something admirable and contributing to society. I don’t think that I personally could murder someone to save the lives of three others in good conscience because to me, murder is murder. I would not be able to live with myself and would therefore rather be the one sacrificed. With the first trolley car case, I agree that it would be better to steer away from the five people to hit the one person. This is because the only choice you are making is the choice to kill five people instead of one; and either way you are going to be the one killing the people. In the second case, I would not be able to push the fat man over because that would be me actively and knowledgeably killing someone. That sounds very hypocritical, but that’s how my conscience works. If I were the fat man, I would like to say that I would jump to save the lives of five others. I agree with the kid who said that he could not push a man in front of the car when he otherwise would not have been involved. That is a decision that can be helped. The trolley car driver does not have the luxury of making a decision based on involvement. The only decision that the trolley car driver has is one of quantity; how many lives HE would take. So in some cases, I believe that one should give into the consequentialist moral reasoning while in others, the categorical moral reasoning. I don’t believe that there is a reasoning system that is absolutely correct in all cases. In the case of capital punishment, I sometimes struggle with my belief system. The only way I can justify it is that it is morally understandable to take the life of an individual who does not respect human life at all: one who takes innocent human lives out of spite or for personal gain. This is a constant moral dilemma for me.
It's been almost 11 months since I last watched Sandel's first episode and I feel the same way as I did last February: conflicted. The one thing that has previously turned me away from philosophy in general is the fact that there is never a correct, black and white answer. And this is the exact thing that makes me agitated when I listen to Sandel speak. Even though he is a truly gifted lecturer and writer, the questions he proposes in his lectures and novels are never answered. Instead, he just presents scenario after scenario, which eventually leads into some form of introduction for theory.
But, this is exactly Sandel's goal: he is forcing us to form our own opinions and look at why we believe what we believe. And I must admit, aligning judgments with principle is the hardest part. In other words, it is simple to make a judgement and say what you believe, but it is difficult to explain to someone why you believe what you believe. Along these same lines, this is what makes what Sandel calls "categoricalism" so powerful, because it is dynamic when the intrinsic reasoning behind a moral act can be applied to multiple situations.
During and after watching this episode I was definitely conflicted with my own thoughts. I agreed with the majority every time in each of his examples. In the trolley car example, I think it was morally correct to turn and kill the one instead of the five, but not to push the fat man over and save the five. I think the reason I feel this way is because as the driver, I'm in the situation no matter what, and not by choice and either way I'm killing people, whether it be 1 or 5, so it would be better to kill 1. As an onlooker, I would have to choose to be a part of the situation, and even though I can save the lives of 5 by sacrificing one, by not doing that, there isn't any blood on my hands. Also, the fat man isn't choosing to be a part of the situation and I'm putting him in it, which is morally wrong. I agree with Tim that neither categorical or consequentialist reasoning is always right, but it changes with the circumstances.
The situations posed in Sandel's lecture are all very intriguing. They make you really think and explore your own sense of morality, which I like. I agreed with the majority in the questions posed in part 1, although I wasn't really satisfied with the opposing view's answers to some of the questions. In the trolley example, the vast majority of the audience agreed that they would kill one worker in favor of killing the five, but they would not push a man off the bridge to save the five. This viewpoint makes the most sense and it is the one that I agree with, but I can see how the opposing point of view could possibly be appealing to some, and I'm not quite satisfied with the answers of those that expressed the opposing point of view. In some ways, I'm unconvinced that killing one worker on the tracks is any different than pushing the fat man off of the bridge. Students in the video argued that the fat man wasn't in the situation unless he was pushed off of the bridge, but this is also true for the worker on the tracks. The worker wasn't in the situation until you turned the trolley car onto his set of tracks, and neither of the two men deserved or asked to be killed. I believe that it would be immoral to push the man off the bridge, but it is considerations such as these that make me wonder if this is really the case. I think the reason I am inclined to think this way is that in the first example, you are forced by the laws of nature and the laws of cause and effect to take the life of some person or group of persons, while in the second example, you have the choice to stay out of the situation completely. Although you could argue that you are just as liable for the consequences of the second situation as in the first, I don't think that simply being on the bridge obligates you to make a decision of who will live and who will die, just as you are not obligated to kill the cabin boy to save the rest of the crew.
This lecture was very entertaining as well as informative. The examples that Michael Sandel opened with perfectly illustrated the points that he was trying to make about determining what is morally acceptable. In one situation, sure, most people would choose to kill one person over killing five people (based on what the consequences would be they chose this action), but when a variable changes, most people believe that it is more morally permissible to allow the five to be killed rather than to kill the one by their own hand. I agreed with the majority in every situation, but I can definitely understand how that can seem almost hypocritical. However, when the situations are changed, what I believed would be morally right also changed. Pushing a person over the bridge who would have have been involved in the accident does not seem morally acceptable (so five people would be killed), but if I was a driver then I would have hit the one person instead of taking five lives (so only one would die). This was the same for the hospital situation. I believe that killing a healthy person is not morally acceptable even though he could save five lives of people who need transplants. For you to involve a person who would not be part of the situation (even though it would save more lives) is in my opinion wrong. Saving the five people instead of the one critically injured patient however, is morally right. All of this led into the discussion about moral reasoning and the differences between consequentialists and the categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning. Kant used the categorical way of thinking about moral reasoning which I can agree with (killing one innocent person for the sake of saving five is morally wrong). No matter what the consequences are, morality is present in certain duties. Even if the results are good, it could still be morally unacceptable to choose that action. I was conflicted with the cannibalism case. Bentham thought that the right thing to do is to maximize utility (the greatest good for the greatest number). I believe that the three surviving with one life being lost is maximizing utility, but what the three did was not morally permissible because there was no consent of the fourth. The lottery system I do believe would have been acceptable because they were all starving, and all four could have died without any food. However, they murdered the boy, and there is a case of cannibalism. I think that people do have certain fundamental rights. The boy did not want to be killed (even though he knew that he might die), and so he was murdered. So, although having three survive does, in my opinion, do the greatest good for the greatest number, consent would have made this act more morally permissible.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agreed with the consequential reasoners of the audience (killing the one man versus killing the larger number (no matter the situation)), I also see the more personal harm done when this decision is made. While "a greatest good for a greater number," as Sandel defines, is accomplished, the smaller number that is killed still affects a certain population of people. In compliance with my personal stance, I believe that killing the majority in order to benefit the minority is morally wrong. I believe that murder of all sorts is unethical, but I do believe that some of the murders in these particular situations are justifiable. Killing one track worker versus the five? Justifiable. Allowing one patient to die in order to properly treat five patients? Justifiable. On the flipside, just as the majority of the lecture hall was, I was very conflicted on how to feel about pushing the man over the bridge and the cannibalism case. While pushing a man over the bridge in order to save the trolley's population is no different than choosing to steer the trolly into one worker versus the five, the act of physically pushing the man over the bridge (a point one student in the audience brought up) is an act that is more personally guilt-ridden (in my eyes) that steering a trolley into a worker. Why this is, I'm unsure, but it was refreshing to see that my opinion wasn't met alone. In the cannibalism case, while I'm not a personal advocate of cannibalism, I understand the logic and desperation behind the murder of the cabin boy. I do, however, agree with Kathleen in her saying that consent from the cabin boy for his sacrifice or, as Matt said, a fair lottery of all of the crew members, would have made the cabin boy's murder more morally comfortable in the eyes of a larger majority. The moral work of consent is one of wonders: moral consent not only makes murder and other crimes logical in the murder's eyes, but the victims as well, being the victim themselves or the families/loved ones of the actual victim.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily that this was a very entertaining lecture and that it gave me some insight and even challenged some of my own morals. I believe that every human being is born with the right to life and what we do with our life is a result of choices we make. The only fundamental right that we have is the right to life in my opinion. Healthcare, education, nourishment, and clean water, are things that we must earn, find, or be able to gain access to on our own. As harsh as that sounds, life is the only right that everyone truly is born with. However, in my opinion, the right to life includes everything that we need to survive until we are old enough to access and utilize these things on our own. This puts the responsibility of our lives onto those who conceived us and/or our guardians. This is why I believe abortion is wrong.
ReplyDeleteTo get back on the episode, it is of my belief that the act of conscientiously and purposefully taking a life is not ultimately our choice, but God’s (I am Roman Catholic). However, in some cases, I find this belief challenged. For example, the lottery idea presented in the cannibalism case really tempted me into believing that sparing three lives for the price of one would be morally justifiable. This has a few conditions though. Each person concerned must give consent to the lottery idea and must have the same chance of winning as everyone else. With full consent and equality of chances, I almost would have to sympathize and give into the temptation that it would be justified. This is because that consent is agreeing that you don’t see your life as any more important that anyone else’s and that if you lose, you are doing something admirable and contributing to society. I don’t think that I personally could murder someone to save the lives of three others in good conscience because to me, murder is murder. I would not be able to live with myself and would therefore rather be the one sacrificed. With the first trolley car case, I agree that it would be better to steer away from the five people to hit the one person. This is because the only choice you are making is the choice to kill five people instead of one; and either way you are going to be the one killing the people. In the second case, I would not be able to push the fat man over because that would be me actively and knowledgeably killing someone. That sounds very hypocritical, but that’s how my conscience works. If I were the fat man, I would like to say that I would jump to save the lives of five others. I agree with the kid who said that he could not push a man in front of the car when he otherwise would not have been involved. That is a decision that can be helped. The trolley car driver does not have the luxury of making a decision based on involvement. The only decision that the trolley car driver has is one of quantity; how many lives HE would take. So in some cases, I believe that one should give into the consequentialist moral reasoning while in others, the categorical moral reasoning. I don’t believe that there is a reasoning system that is absolutely correct in all cases. In the case of capital punishment, I sometimes struggle with my belief system. The only way I can justify it is that it is morally understandable to take the life of an individual who does not respect human life at all: one who takes innocent human lives out of spite or for personal gain. This is a constant moral dilemma for me.
It's been almost 11 months since I last watched Sandel's first episode and I feel the same way as I did last February: conflicted. The one thing that has previously turned me away from philosophy in general is the fact that there is never a correct, black and white answer. And this is the exact thing that makes me agitated when I listen to Sandel speak. Even though he is a truly gifted lecturer and writer, the questions he proposes in his lectures and novels are never answered. Instead, he just presents scenario after scenario, which eventually leads into some form of introduction for theory.
ReplyDeleteBut, this is exactly Sandel's goal: he is forcing us to form our own opinions and look at why we believe what we believe. And I must admit, aligning judgments with principle is the hardest part. In other words, it is simple to make a judgement and say what you believe, but it is difficult to explain to someone why you believe what you believe. Along these same lines, this is what makes what Sandel calls "categoricalism" so powerful, because it is dynamic when the intrinsic reasoning behind a moral act can be applied to multiple situations.
During and after watching this episode I was definitely conflicted with my own thoughts. I agreed with the majority every time in each of his examples. In the trolley car example, I think it was morally correct to turn and kill the one instead of the five, but not to push the fat man over and save the five. I think the reason I feel this way is because as the driver, I'm in the situation no matter what, and not by choice and either way I'm killing people, whether it be 1 or 5, so it would be better to kill 1. As an onlooker, I would have to choose to be a part of the situation, and even though I can save the lives of 5 by sacrificing one, by not doing that, there isn't any blood on my hands. Also, the fat man isn't choosing to be a part of the situation and I'm putting him in it, which is morally wrong. I agree with Tim that neither categorical or consequentialist reasoning is always right, but it changes with the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteThe situations posed in Sandel's lecture are all very intriguing. They make you really think and explore your own sense of morality, which I like. I agreed with the majority in the questions posed in part 1, although I wasn't really satisfied with the opposing view's answers to some of the questions. In the trolley example, the vast majority of the audience agreed that they would kill one worker in favor of killing the five, but they would not push a man off the bridge to save the five. This viewpoint makes the most sense and it is the one that I agree with, but I can see how the opposing point of view could possibly be appealing to some, and I'm not quite satisfied with the answers of those that expressed the opposing point of view. In some ways, I'm unconvinced that killing one worker on the tracks is any different than pushing the fat man off of the bridge. Students in the video argued that the fat man wasn't in the situation unless he was pushed off of the bridge, but this is also true for the worker on the tracks. The worker wasn't in the situation until you turned the trolley car onto his set of tracks, and neither of the two men deserved or asked to be killed. I believe that it would be immoral to push the man off the bridge, but it is considerations such as these that make me wonder if this is really the case. I think the reason I am inclined to think this way is that in the first example, you are forced by the laws of nature and the laws of cause and effect to take the life of some person or group of persons, while in the second example, you have the choice to stay out of the situation completely. Although you could argue that you are just as liable for the consequences of the second situation as in the first, I don't think that simply being on the bridge obligates you to make a decision of who will live and who will die, just as you are not obligated to kill the cabin boy to save the rest of the crew.
ReplyDeleteFriendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in madipakkam