Justice Lecture Notes

Introduction to Moral Dilemmas

• Scenario: Trolley problem involving a trolley driver deciding whether to kill one worker to save five.
• Questions Raised:
  • What is the right action?
  • How do we determine morality?

First Case: Trolley Driver

• Poll:
  • Majority would choose to turn the trolley (kill 1 to save 5).
  • Reasons for choosing to turn:
    • Preventing the deaths of five is deemed more moral than sacrificing one.
    • Reflection on moral decisions in critical situations (e.g., 9/11 example).

Second Case: The Bridge and the Fat Man

• Scenario: An onlooker can push a fat man over a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five workers.
• Poll:
  • Most do not support pushing the fat man.
• Discussion: Differences between the two cases are highlighted:
  • Active vs. Passive Role:
    • Steering the trolley involves passive decision-making, unlike actively pushing the man which is a direct act of murder.
    • Debate on moral justification in each context.

Third Case: Medical Dilemma

• Scenario: Doctor faced with treating one patient or five; both choices have tragic outcomes.
• Majority choose to save five lives, reflecting a consequentialist perspective.

Fourth Case: Organ Transplant

• Scenario: A surgeon considering killing a healthy patient to harvest organs for five others.
• Poll:
  • No hands raised signaling willingness to commit the act.

Moral Principles Discussed

• Consequentialism:
  • Morality based on the outcomes of actions.
  • Emphasized by Jeremy Bentham (utilitarianism = maximizing happiness).
• Categorical Morality:
  • Morality based on the intrinsic nature of acts, regardless of outcomes.
  • Influenced by Immanuel Kant (certain actions are categorically wrong).

Risks in Philosophical Investigation

• Philosophy confronts familiar ideas, often unsettling established beliefs.
• The process aims to provoke new understanding and insight.
• Personal and Political Risks:
  • Awareness may make individuals less comfortable or confident in their convictions.
  • Encountering skepticism can lead to moral paralysis.

Understanding Consent and Moral Choices

• Consent introduced in discussion around the fat man's scenario and medical dilemmas.
  • Some argue that if consent is given, then the act may be justified.
• Discussion Points:
  • What is the moral significance of consent?
  • Can killing be justified if based on a previously agreed-upon procedure?

The Case of Dudley and Stephens

• Historical case illustrating moral dilemmas in extreme conditions.
  • Three men survived by killing and consuming a cabin boy after being stranded at sea.
• Polling on Permissibility: Significant debate on whether their actions were permissible under duress and necessity.
• Arguments presented include:
  • Defense: Necessity justifies the action.
  • Prosecution: Murder is murder, regardless of circumstances.

Conclusion and Next Steps

• Key Questions Raised:
  1. Why is murder considered categorically wrong?
  2. What is the moral importance of a fair process (e.g., lottery)?
  3. How does consent affect moral justification?
• Future readings will focus on philosophical principles from Bentham and Mill, examining the concept of utilitarianism further.