Lecture on Justice and Moral Reasoning

Introduction

• Story of a trolley car dilemma
  • Trolley car hurdling down a track with 5 workers
  • Option to divert to a side track with 1 worker
  • Question: What's the right thing to do?
• Poll taken: Majority would turn to save 5, minority would not
• Reasons for turning: Better to kill 1 than 5
• Opposition: Actions similar to justifying genocide

Exploring Reasons

• Different moral principles discussed
• Majority: Better to kill 1 to save 5 (Consequentialist reasoning)
• Minority: Avoiding active harm (Categorical reasoning)

Second Scenario

• Trolley car again, but now a bystander can push a fat man to save 5
• Poll: Majority would not push the fat man
• Question: Why does the principle change?
• Different involvement: Steering vs. physically pushing

Third Scenario

• Doctor scenario: Save 1 severely injured or 5 moderately injured?
• Poll: Majority would save 5
• Transplant scenario: Kill a healthy person for organs to save 5?
• Poll: Majority against it
• Discussion on hypothetical solutions

Emergence of Moral Principles

• Consequentialist moral reasoning: Right action depends on consequences
• Categorical moral reasoning: Some actions are categorically wrong, regardless of consequences
• Influential philosophers: Jeremy Bentham (Utilitarianism), Emmanuel Kant (Categorical moral reasoning)
• Course to cover: Aristotle, John Locke, Mill, etc., and contemporary issues like affirmative action, free speech, etc.

Risks of Philosophy

• Philosophy unsettles established beliefs
• Personal and political risks of philosophical inquiry
• Skepticism as an evasion
• Kant's take on skepticism: Restless reason

Case Study: Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens

• True story: Shipwreck, survival by cannibalism
• Facts: 4 crew, 2 cans of turnips, turtle, no water
• Cabin boy Parker killed and eaten
• Trial: Necessity defense vs. moral objection
• Poll: Majority find them guilty

Analysis of Moral Arguments

• Defense: Acting out of necessity
• Opposition: Murder is categorically wrong
• Scenario of consent: Would it make it morally permissible?
• Lottery suggestion: Fair procedure but moral doubts

Closing Thoughts

• Questions raised:
  • Why is murder categorically wrong?
  • Why would consent make a moral difference?
  • Why does a fair procedure justify outcomes?
• Introduction to upcoming readings: Bentham, Mill, and others
• Encouragement to participate in online discussions and explore further.