Last time, we started out last time with some stories, 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. We 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 and the consequences in the results, in the state of the world that it brought about. And we called this consequentialist moral reasoning. But we also noticed that in some cases, we weren't swayed only by the result.
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 18th 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, is 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 he 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're thinking about what to do in our own lives, or whether, as legislators or citizens, we're thinking about what the laws 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. Ian Stevens.
This was a 19th 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, then I want to hear how you would rule, imagining that you were 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 Minionette. The ship foundered in the South Atlantic, 1,300 miles from the Cape. There were four in the crew.
Dudley was the captain. Stevens 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, 17 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 minionette 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, they 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 ate nothing.
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 the corner, because he had drunk seawater, against the advice of the others, and he had become ill, and he appeared to be dying. So on the 19th day, Dudley, the captain, suggested that they should all have a lottery, that they should 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 the 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 Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze, and he motioned to Stevens that the boy Parker had better be killed. Dudley offered a prayer, he told the boy his time had come, and he killed him with a penknife, 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 24th day, as we were having our breakfast, laughter 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 Stevens went to trial. They didn't dispute the fact. 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 Stevens. Why would you morally exonerate them?
What are your reasons? Yes. I think it is morally reprehensible, but I think that there is a distinction between what is morally reprehensible and what makes someone legally accountable.
In other words, as the judge said, what is always moral isn't necessarily against the law, and while I don't think that necessarily Necessity justifies theft or murder or any illegal act. At some point, your degree of necessity does, in fact, exonerate you from any guilt. Okay, good.
Other defenders, other voices for the defense. Moral justifications for what they did. Yes. All right, 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. You got to do what you got to do, pretty much.
If you've been going 19 days without any food, you know, someone just has to take the sacrifice. Someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive. And furthermore, from that, let's say they survive and then they become productive members of society who go home and 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 they might have gone and like gonna kill more people whatever but what? What if they were went home and they turned out to be assassins if they weren't going home and turned out to be assassins Mm-hmm. Well, you'd want to know who they assassinated That's fair, okay, all right, that's good. What's your name?
Marcus. Marcus. All right.
We've heard a defense, a couple of voices for the defense. Now we need to hear from the prosecution. Most people think what they did was wrong.
Why? Yes. One of the first things that I was thinking was, oh, if they haven't been eating for a really long time, maybe they're mentally affected, and so then that could be used as a defense, a possible argument. that, oh, they weren't in the proper state of mind, they weren't making decisions they might otherwise 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 were acting in a way that i want to know what you think you defend the new and so you go to to conduct right now i don't think that they acted in a morally appropriate way and why not what do you say his market he just defended them he said you're going to get that yes you've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that what do you say to markets That there's no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea of fate or the other people's lives in their own hands.
That we don't have that kind of power. Good. Okay. Thank you. And what's your name?
Britt. Britt? Yes.
Okay. Who else? What do you say? I'm wondering if Dudley and Steven had asked for Richard Parker's consent in, you know, dying, if that would exonerate them from an act of murder.
And if so, is that still morally justifiable? That's interesting. All right. Consent. Wait, wait.
Hang on. What's your name? Kathleen.
Kathleen. 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. Yeah. You can be a martyr.
Would you be a martyr? How about it, Parker? Then, what do you think?
Would it be morally justified then? I don't know. Suppose Parker, in his semi-stupor, says, okay. I don't think it would 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?
Yes. 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 any way. 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 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 who, when they're going to get rescued.
So if you kill him, it's 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 weak. weakest maybe, one by one, until they were rescued. And in this case, luckily, they were rescued when three at least were still alive.
Now, if Parker did give his consent, would it be all right, do you think, or not? No. No.
It still wouldn't be right. And tell us why it 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. So then, even on the scenario of waiting until someone died, still it would be objectionable. Yes, to me personally.
I feel like it all depends on one's personal morals and like we can't sit here and just like this is just my opinion And of course other people are going to disagree But I'll see it. Let's see what their disagreements are and then we'll see if they have reasons that can persuade you or not Let's try that. All right, 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. Suppose there were a lottery, cabin boy lost, and the rest of the story unfolded.
Then how many people would say it was 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...
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 desires are more important than yours, and mine take precedent. And if they had done a lottery, where 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.
And 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. Right? And can someone who agrees with me... Say a little bit more about why a lottery would make it, in your view, morally permissible.
Go ahead. 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 something was going to happen to him, even with the original lottery, whether or not he would be a part of that. It was just decided that he... he was the one that was going to die. Right, that's what happened in the actual case.
Right. But if there were a lottery and they'd all agreed to the procedure, you think that would be okay? Right, because then everyone knows that there's going to 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. All right, now suppose he, everyone agrees to the lottery, they have the lottery, the cabin boy loses and he 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 that you're dying for the, you know, the reason for others to live, you would, if someone else had died, you know that you would consume them, so...
Right, 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 had he known what was going on, it would be a bit more understandable.
All right, good. Now I want to hear, so there are some who think it's morally permissible, but only about 20%, 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 by Parker, at the very last moment, it would still be wrong. And why would it be wrong?
That's what I want to hear. Yes. Well, the whole time I've been leaning all towards the categorical moral reasoning, and I think that... There's a possibility I'd be okay with the idea of a lottery and then the loser taking it into their own hands to kill themselves so that 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 were eating our breakfast. It seems as though he's just sort of like, you know, the whole idea of not valuing someone else's life.
So that makes me... I feel like I have to take the categorical step. You want to throw the book at him.
When he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong. Right. So, all right, good.
Other, any other? Defenders of a... 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 in every way and our society looks at murder down on in the same light And I don't think it's any different in any case. Good.
Let me ask you a question. There were three lives at stake. Versus one. Okay. The one, 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, in popular opinion, sympathized with them, Dudley and Stevens, and the paper said if they weren't motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones at home and their dependents, surely they wouldn't have done that.
Yeah, and how is that any different from people on a corner trying to have the same desire to feed their family? I don't think it's any different I think in any case if I'm from murdering you to invest my status that's murder And I think that we should look at all that on the same light instead of criminalizing certain activities and and making certain things seem more violent and savage when in the same case is all the same It's all the same And mentality that goes into murder, necessity to feed your family, so. Suppose it weren't three, suppose it were 30. 300. One life to save 300. We're in wartime. 3,000.
Suppose the stakes are even bigger. Suppose the stakes are even bigger. I think it's still the same deal. Do you think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do is to add up the collective happiness?
Do you think he's wrong about that? I don't think he's 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.
All right. Thank you. Well done.
All right, let's step back from this discussion. Notice, how many objections have we heard to what they did? We heard some defenses of what they did.
The defenses had to do with necessity, their 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 try 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 said what they did was categorically wrong, Mike here at the end, categorically wrong.
Murder is murder, it's always wrong, even if it increases the overall happiness of society. A 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.
But... 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. leaves us with another question to investigate.
Why does agreement to a 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 onto this. If the cabin boy had agreed himself to the agreement, would he have agreed to And not under duress, as was added.
then it would be all right to take his life to save the rest. And 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?
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 learn a lot more. Visit justiceharvard.org. It's the right thing to do.