Lecture Notes: Justice and Moral Dilemmas

Introduction

• Course Theme: Justice
• Scenario Introduction: Trolley Car Dilemma
  • You are the driver of a trolley car with failing brakes heading towards five workers.
  • Option to switch tracks to hit one worker instead.
  • Key Question: What is the right thing to do?

Trolley Problem Discussion

Majority Perspective

• Turn the trolley to the sidetrack to save five at the cost of one.
• Reasoning: Better to kill one than five - similar to decisions made during 9/11.

Minority Perspective

• Continue on the same track, do not choose to kill one.
• Reasoning: Avoids logic that could justify larger scale atrocities like genocide.

Second Trolley Scenario

• Scenario: Push a large man off a bridge to stop the trolley from killing five.
• Observation: Majority wouldn't push the man, despite earlier willingness to sacrifice one.

Discussion

• Reasoning Difference:
  • Pushing involves an active choice, not inherent in the first case.
  • The onlooker (in this case) impacts the decision due to direct involvement.

Moral Reasoning Theories

Consequentialist Moral Reasoning

• Morality based on outcome/consequences.
• Example: Utilitarianism - maximizes happiness for the greatest number.

Categorical Moral Reasoning

• Morality based on absolute moral duties/rights, regardless of consequences.

Analyzing Cases

Queen vs. Dudley and Stevens

• Real-Life Case: Cannibalism of cabin boy by survivors of a shipwreck.
• Defense: Acted out of necessity to survive (utilitarian view). Better one die than three.

Jury Simulation

• Majority Verdict: Guilty - morally wrong.
• Defense Arguments:
  • Necessity can excuse moral actions.
  • Possible productivity and societal benefits from survivors.

Ethical Considerations

Consent and Moral Justification

• Proposal: If boy consented, would it be moral?
• Lottery Idea: If agreed upon, would it be justified?

Counterarguments

• Murder is inherently wrong, regardless of outcome or consent.
• Personal Morals: Different perspectives based on individual beliefs.

Philosophical Exploration

• Consequentialist vs. Categorical: Upcoming discussions on Bentham's utilitarianism and Kant's categorical imperatives.
• Reading Syllabus: Philosophers like Aristotle, Locke, Mill, etc.

Risks of Philosophical Inquiry

• Personal Risks: Self-knowledge can be unsettling and lead to a permanent change in perspective.
• Political Risks: Philosophy may make one a worse citizen before a better one due to challenging established beliefs.

Conclusion

• Evasion of Skepticism: Avoid ceasing moral reflection due to past unresolved debates.
• Course Aim: To engage and awaken the "restlessness of reason" and explore where it leads.