Notes on Lecture about Justice

Introduction

• Funding for the program is provided by various sources.
• Course focus: Understanding justice through moral dilemmas.

Trolley Car Dilemma

• Scenario: You're driving a trolley car at 60 mph towards 5 workers on the track.
  • The brakes fail, but there's a side track with 1 worker.
• Question: What is the right decision?
  • Majority of students would turn the trolley, sparing the 5.
  • Rationale: It is better to kill 1 than 5.

Reactions and Ethical Implications

• Majority View:

  • Turning the trolley is justified to save more lives.
  • Comparison to 9/11; choosing to save many at the cost of one.

• Minority View:

  • Killing to save lives can lead to justifying acts like genocide.
  • Preference to crash into 5 rather than actively kill 1.

Altered Scenario - The Bridge

• New Scenario: An onlooker can push a fat man off a bridge to stop the trolley.
• Polling: Most would not push the fat man.
  • This raises questions about moral principles of action vs inaction.

Moral Reasoning Discussion

• Distinction between active choice (pushing the fat man) vs passive decision (steering the trolley).
• Discussion on moral justification based on responsibility and involvement in the action.
• Additional Scenario: Doctor facing moral choice of treating one critically injured patient or multiple moderately injured patients.
  • Majority would save the five.

Organ Transplant Dilemma

• Scenario: A surgeon could kill one healthy patient to save five in need of organ transplants.
• Polling: No one was willing to commit murder for this purpose.

Consequentialist vs. Categorical Moral Reasoning

• Consequentialism: Morality based on outcomes (e.g., utilitarianism).
  • Example: Jeremy Bentham's principle of maximizing happiness (greatest good for the greatest number).
• Categorical Moral Reasoning: Intrinsic morality of actions regardless of consequences.
  • Example: Immanuel Kant's philosophy.

Case Study: Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

• Real-life scenario of cannibalism for survival.
• Background: Four crew members stranded at sea.
  • Cabin boy, Richard Parker, is killed by Dudley to save the rest.
• Trial Outcome: Questioning of moral permissibility in dire circumstances.
• Arguments:
  • Defense: Necessity and survival justified the act.
  • Prosecution: Murder is inherently wrong, regardless of the situation.

Ethical Questions Raised

1. Is necessity a valid defense for murder?
2. Does a lottery or consent make the act morally permissible?
3. What moral work does consent do?

Conclusion

• The course will examine different philosophical perspectives on morality and justice.
• Expect to explore and debate these ethical dilemmas throughout the semester.