Lecture Notes on Justice and Moral Reasoning

Funding

• Funding for this program is provided by...
• Additional funding provided by...

Introduction to Moral Dilemma: The Trolley Problem

• Scenario 1:
  • You're the driver of a trolley car heading towards five workers on the track.
  • You can steer to a side track where one worker is present, saving five but killing one.
  • Question: What is the right thing to do?
  • Poll Results: Majority in class would turn the trolley, a few would not.

Justifications for Steering the Trolley

• Reason 1: It's better to kill one than five.
• Comparison with 9/11: Justification of sacrificing fewer lives for greater good.

Arguments Against Steering the Trolley

• Counterpoint: This mindset can justify genocide or totalitarianism.
• Choice of action: Some prefer to not actively cause death even for a greater good.

Second Scenario: The Bridge Dilemma

• Scenario: As an onlooker, can you push a fat man off a bridge to stop the trolley and save five workers?
  • Poll Results: Most would not push the fat man.
  • Question: Why the difference in ethical judgment between the two scenarios?

Responses to the Bridge Dilemma

• Active vs. Passive Choice: Pushing the fat man is an active decision; steering the trolley is seen as reactive.
• Principle of Involvement: Does the act of killing matter more than the number of lives saved?

Additional Dilemmas: The Doctor's Choices

• Scenario 1: Doctor with six patients, one severely injured and five moderately injured.

  • Poll Results: Majority would save the five.

• Scenario 2: Transplant surgeon can save five patients by taking organs from a healthy person.

  • Poll Results: Majority would not take the organs, even to save five lives.

Consequentialism vs. Categorical Moral Reasoning

• Consequentialism: Moral actions judged by their outcomes (e.g., utilitarianism).
• Categorical Moral Reasoning: Certain acts are inherently wrong regardless of outcomes (e.g., killing an innocent).
  • Philosophers Discussed: Jeremy Bentham (utilitarianism) and Emmanuel Kant (categorical principles).

Philosophical Exploration and Risks

• Philosophy's Role: It challenges familiar beliefs and can unsettle personal convictions.
• Risks of Philosophy: May lead to confusion or worse citizenship before improving moral reasoning.
• Skepticism: Recognizing that unresolved questions exist is a part of philosophical inquiry.

Case Study: The Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

• Real-Life Story: Shipwreck survivors decide to kill the cabin boy to survive after 19 days without food.
  • Moral Question: Was their act morally permissible?

Jury Decision Poll

• Poll Results: Majority thinks it's morally wrong.
• Arguments For Defense: Necessity in dire circumstances can justify actions.
• Arguments Against: Lack of consent makes the act categorically wrong.

Conclusion and Further Questions

• Three Key Questions for Further Exploration:
  1. Why is murder considered categorically wrong?
  2. What role does a fair procedure (lottery) play in moral justification?
  3. How does consent impact moral permissibility?
• Next Steps: Reading philosophers like Bentham and John Stuart Mill to explore these concepts.