Justice: Trolley Problem and Moral Reasoning

Introductory Context

• Scenario: You're the driver of a trolley car going 60 mph.
• Dilemma: Five workers on the track vs. one worker on the side track.
• Choice: Turn the trolley, killing one to save five or keep straight, killing five.

Initial Poll and Discussion

• Majority would turn to kill one and save five.
• Reason: It's better to kill one than five (Consequentialist reasoning).
• Minority View: Some wouldn't turn the trolley, seeing it as morally wrong no matter the outcome (Categorical reasoning).

New Scenario: Fat Man on the Bridge

• Scenario: Push a fat man over to save five workers on the track.
• Poll: Most wouldn't push the fat man.
• Discussion: Raises the question of active choice vs. passive consequence.

Further Exploration

• Alternate Scenarios: Doctor with six patients, one severely injured vs. five moderately injured; Transplant surgeon with one healthy patient and five in need of organs.
• Polling Results: Generally consistent (save more lives), but hesitation on directly causing a death (pushing man, organ harvesting).

Emerging Moral Principles

• Consequentialist Reasoning: Morality based on the outcomes; saving more lives deemed better.
• Categorical Reasoning: Some acts are inherently wrong, regardless of consequences.

Philosophical Background

• Utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham's principle of utility – maximize happiness/pleasure, minimize suffering.
• Contrasted consequentialist and categorical moral principles.
• Key Figures: Jeremy Bentham (utilitarianism), Immanuel Kant (categorical moral reasoning).

Case Study: Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

• True Story: Yacht Mignonette’s crew stranded; captain Dudley and first mate Stephens killed and ate cabin boy Parker to survive.
• Moral Question: Was it permissible to kill one to save others?
• Polling: Majority thought it was wrong, even under dire circumstances.

Defense and Prosecution Arguments

• Defense: Act of necessity, survival instinct.
• Prosecution: Killing is categorically wrong; taking someone's life into your own hands is immoral.
• Consent Argument: Would it be different with Parker's consent or a fair lottery?

Complexity of Moral Decisions

• Reflections: Balancing individual rights vs. greater good; intrinsic morality of acts.
• Philosophy confronts what we think we know, making familiar concepts strange.

Course Objective and Risks

• Examining moral principles and contemporary issues (e.g., equality, free speech, same-sex marriage).
• Risks: personal (self-knowledge) and political (philosophical distance from civic life).
• Warning against skepticism: these moral questions are inescapable because they inform daily life.

Conclusion

• Philosophy provokes restlessness of reason.
• We’ll explore ideas like utilitarianism, equality, and moral duty guided by philosophers such as Bentham, Mill, Kant.

Future Topics

• Upcoming readings & debates outlined in the syllabus.
• Engagement with classic and contemporary philosophical issues.

Visit the course website for more resources

Funding for the program is provided by: ... Additional funding provided by: ...