"the Moral Side of Murder".. great new Harvard series episode #1

[SoCalDem]

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

This is a philosophy course, online (free) and this is the first episode..

It kind of reminds me of the old PBS series where they had a panel of people discussing the issues of the day.. the name escapes me now..

This should be great.. It's on PBS, too, but it's nice to have it online too:)


Episode Guide

For the best learning experience, watch the twelve Justice episodes in chronological order. Every Sunday, an additional episode will be added to the web site and available for viewing. Each one hour episode includes two separate lectures. Below is a summary of all twelve episodes.

Lecture Summaries
Episode One

PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER

If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM

Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number.

snip

[TreasonousBastard]

1. This is really good stuff. Many of the questions are old ones and...

have been tossed around for centuries, but they are classics and should be tossed around by anyone who thinks he's got a handle on ethics or morality.

[SoCalDem]

2. I'm watching it on tv now.. the professor is wonderful

:)

[RandomThoughts]

3. It is a false premise.

What if they did not hurt the cabin boy, and a rescue ship showed up before they starved.

What if they refused to agree to the premise and kill someone, and nothing bad happened to the other five people.


If someone tells you that you have to kill one person to save five, he is framing the argument for you, giving you one of two choices. I would find a third option, and not let someone frame the question that way, and find a way where nobody dies. Also if someone is telling you that you have to kill or do wrong to survive, that would not be my choice of person to figure out what has to be done. And I would not believe his computations when they include having to shoot someone.

The second question does the same thing. It proposes that to save the whole group they would have to do bad, again I would not accept the premise and find a way to do it where there would not be the need for the killing.

In both examples the least suffering is only found if you accept the premise of the question and do not find a way around the conundrum.

The questions are used to say the least suffering for the most amount of people is always good. It leaves out part of the question.

In my view, finding a way to create the least suffering for the most amount of people, while not hurting other people, is the choice I would take. Many times a question can be posed that gives an 'end' of least suffering, and a 'means' of hurting someone. And it is a false premise just to get the person to hurt someone thinking they have to if they are to reduce suffering.

So I believe in working for the least suffering for the most amount of people, while trying to do as much good things, and not hurt people in the process.


The second question is also used to criticize the need for the actions of Jesus Christ, or to say that the saints that were killed can not be argued to have been justified, because there should have been a way for them to live. Why would God allow it? Why would some people have to die to save others? Why would Jesus have to die?

That is backwards from the questions posed, because it transfers the action of doing bad. When the question is used against a religion where some people die trying to do good, it is not them doing the harm, it is them being harmed. That is also why I disagree with suicide bombers, they are hurting people. However if someone was doing good and got killed then they would not have made the choice to do harm, they would have been harmed. So the questions touch on the ideas of self sacrifice as looked on by many religions.

If the question is why doesn't God stop them from being hurt, then you get into meaning of death, and you get into free will.

[SoCalDem]

4. I'm enjoying how he's pushing the students to rethink their positions

No doubt, they left the auditorium with aching brains:)