Justice Lecture on Moral Dilemmas: Consequentialism vs. Categorical Ethics
Introduction: Trolley Car Dilemma
- Scenario 1: Driver must choose between killing 5 workers by continuing straight or killing 1 by switching tracks.
- Poll Result: Majority would switch tracks.
- Reasoning:
- Killing 5 when 1 could be spared is wrong.
- Comparison to 9/11 heroes who sacrificed plane passengers to save many on the ground.
Minority View
- Justification: Avoiding actions that could justify greater evils like genocide.
- Choice: Would crash into 5 workers instead of acting to kill 1.
Scenario 2: Fat Man on the Bridge
- Scenario: Onlooker can push a fat man to stop trolley, saving 5 workers but killing 1.
- Poll Result: Majority would not push the fat man.
- Discussion: Comparing this to the first scenario reveals complexity and reluctance to act directly.
- Contrast in Views: Killing via direct action (pushing man) vs. indirect consequences (switching tracks).
Additional Moral Dilemmas
Emergency Room Doctor
- Scenario: Doctor must choose between saving 1 severely injured patient or 5 moderately injured patients.
- Consensus: Save the 5.
Transplant Surgeon
- Scenario: Surgeon can kill a healthy person to harvest organs to save 5 patients.
- Consensus: Most would not agree to killing the healthy patient.
Moral Reasoning
- Consequentialist: Morality based on outcomes. Example: Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham) - Actions should maximize overall happiness.
- Categorical: Morality based on principles regardless of outcomes. Example: Emmanuel Kant - Certain actions are categorically wrong.
Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens Case
- Scenario: Shipwreck survivors kill and eat a cabin boy to survive.
- Defense: Acted out of necessity to survive.
- Prosecution: Murder is murder, morally wrong regardless of circumstances.
- Discussion: Debating moral permissibility of their actions under duress.
Consent and Moral Permissibility
- Hypothetical Consent: If Parker had consented, would it change the morality?
- Mixed views on whether consent could justify the act.
- Some argue lottery or fair procedure signifies consent and shared risk.
Key Philosophical Questions
- Why is murder categorically wrong?
- Fundamental rights of individuals.
- Does fair procedure (like a lottery) justify outcomes?
- Balancing equality and collective welfare.
- Role of Consent in Moral Justification
- How consent transforms moral permissibility of actions.
Course Roadmap
- Philosophical Readings: Aristotle, Locke, Kant, Mill, and others.
- Debates on Contemporary Issues: Equality, free speech, same-sex marriage, military conscription.
- Risks of Philosophy: Personal, political risks of philosophical inquiry.
- Objective: Awaken the restlessness of reason to explore moral and political philosophy.
Conclusion
- Philosophy challenges familiar beliefs, making the familiar strange.
- Struggle for self-knowledge and moral reasoning is both unsettling and essential for understanding.
Visit Justice Harvard for further engagement.