The Moral Side of Murder / The Case for Cannibalism

This is a course about justice and we begin with the story. Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car and your trolley car is hurdling down the track at 60 miles an hour and at the end of the track you know there's five workers working on the track. You tried to stop but you can't. Your brakes don't work . You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers. They will all die. Let's assume you know that for sure. And so you feel helpless until you notice that there is a lot to the right. A side track and at the end of that track there is one worker working on the track. Your steering wheel works so you can. Turn the trolley car if you want to . On to the side track. Killing the one. But sparing the five. Here's our first question. What's the right thing to do

. What would you do. Let's take a poll. How many. Would. Turn the trolley car on to the side track. Raise your hands. How many wouldn't. How many would go straight ahead. Keep your hands up those of you who would go straight ahead. A handful of people would the vast majority would turn. Let's hear first. Now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think it's the right thing to do let's begin with those in the majority who would turn to go under the sidetrack. Why would you do it. What would be your reason. Who is willing to volunteer a reason . Go ahead stand up. Because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead.

It wouldn't be right to kill five. If you could kill one person instead . That's a good reason. That's a big reason. Who else does everybody agree with that. Reason. Go ahead. Because the same reason on 9/11 we regard the people who who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes because they chose to kill the people in the plane and not to kill more people in big buildings. So the principal there was the same on 9/11. It's a tragic circumstance but better to kill one and so that five can live. Is that the reason most of you have those of you who would turn. Yes. Let's hear now. From those in the minority. Those who wouldn't turn. Yes well I think that's the same type of mentality that justifies genocide and

totalitarianism in order to save one type of race you wipe out the other . So what would you do in this case you would. To avoid the horrors of genocide. You would crash into the five and kill them . Presumably. You. Yeah. Ok who else . That's a brave answer. Thank you. Let's consider. Another trolley car case. And see whether. Those of you in the majority. Want to add here to the principle. Better that one should die so that five should live. This time you're not the driver of the car you're an on looker. You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track. And down the track comes a trolley car.

At the end of the track or five workers. The brakes don't work. The trolley car is about to careen into the five and killed them and now you're not the driver. You really feel helpless. Until you notice. Standing next to you. Leaning over. The bridge is a very fat man . And . You could. Give him. A shove. He would fall over the bridge under the track. Right in the way of the trolley car. He would die but he would spare the fire off. Now. How many would push the fat man over the bridge. Raise your hand

. How many wouldn't. Most people wouldn't. Here's the obvious question. What became of the principal. Better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one. What became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed in the first case. I need to hear from someone who is in the majority in both cases. How do you explain the difference between the two. Yes. The second one I guess involves an active choice of pushing the person down which I guess the that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in this situation at all and so to choose on his behalf I guess to involve him in something that he otherwise would have escaped is I guess more than what you have in the first case where the three parties the driver and

the two sets of workers are already I guess in the situation. But the guy working the one on the track off to the side. He didn't choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did did he. That's true but he was on the tracks and this guy was on the bridge . Go ahead you can come back if you are. All right it's a hard question. You did well. You did very well. It's a hard question. Who else . Can. Find a way of reconciling . The reaction of the majority in these two cases. Yes well I guess in the first case where you have the one worker in the five. It's choice between those two and they have to make certain choice and people are going die because the trolley car now a surly because of your direct actions the trolley cars are a runaway thing and you're making a split second choice

whereas pushing the fat man over is an actual act of murder on your part. You have control over that whereas you may not have control over the trolley car . So I think it's a slightly different situation. All right who has a reply is that us. Well that's that's good who has her way. Who wants to reply. Is that a way out of this. I don't think that's a very good reason because you choose to. It's Either way you have to choose who dies because you don't choose to turn in killed a person which is an act of conscious thought to turn. Or you choose to push the fat man over which is also an active conscious action. So either way you're making a choice. Do you want to reply. Well I'm not really sure that's the case. It just still seems kind of different the act of actually pushing someone over onto the tracks and killing him. You are actually killing him yourself. You're pushing it with your own hands. You're pushing him and that's different than steering something that is going to cause death and to know that you

know it doesn't really sound right saying it now. Let's try to move here Wes and Scott what's your name. Andrew Andrew. Let me ask you this question then. Yes I suppose. Standing on the bridge next to the fat man. I didn't have to push and Suppose he were standing over a trap door that I could open by turning the steering wheel like . I. Would you turn for some reason that it still just seems more wrong right. I mean maybe if you accidentally like leaned into the steering wheel or something . Or. Or say that the car is hurdling towards a switch that will drop the trout. Then I could have already said. Fair enough. It still seems. Wrong in a way that it doesn't seem wrong in the first case to turn. You say and in another way I mean in the first situation you're involved directly with the situation and

the second when you're an onlooker as well. All right so you have the choice of becoming involved or not bypassing the Fadiman. Let's let's just forget for the moment about this case. That's good . Let's have imagine a different case this time you're a doctor in an emergency room and six patients come to you. They've been in a terrible trolley car wreck. Five of them sustained moderate injuries one is severely injured you could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim. But in that time the five would die. Or you could look after the five restore them to health but during that time the one severely injured person would die. How many would save the five . Now is the doctor. How many would save that one. Very few people. Just a handful of people. Same reason I assume. One life versus five

. Now consider another doctor case. This time you're a transplant surgeon and you have five patients each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive. One needs a heart one a long one a kidney one a liver . And the fifth. A pancreas. And you have no organ donors. You are about to. See them die . And then. It occurs to you. That in the next room. There is a healthy guy who came in for a checkup. I. And he's . Like no I. I. And he says he's taking a nap. I. Could go in very quietly. Yank out the five organs that

person would die. But you could save the five. How many would do it. Anyone . How many. Put your hands up if you would do it . Anyone in the balcony. You would be careful don't lean over to my. Right eye. How many wouldn't. All right. What do you say speak up in the balcony. You would yank out the organs. Why. I'd actually like to explore slightly alternate possibility of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first and using. Their For healthy organs to save the other four. And. A pretty good idea. Thank you. That's a great idea. Except for the fact

. That you just react to a philosophical point. I. Know But let's step back from these stories and these arguments. To notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold. Certain. Moral Principles. Have already begun to emerge from the discussions we've had and let's consider. What those moral principles. Look like. The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion . Said. The right thing to do. The world thing to do depends on the consequences that will result. From your action. At the end of the day. Better that five should live even if one must die. That's an example of consequentialist. Moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequences of an act in the state

of the world that will result from the thing you do. But then we went a little further we considered those other cases. And people weren't so sure about. Consequentialist moral reasoning . When people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge or to yank out the organs of the innocent. Patient. People gestured toward. Reasons . Having to do with the intrinsic. Quality of the act itself. Consequences be worth pain maybe. People were reluctant. People thought it was just wrong. Categorically wrong. To kill a person an innocent person . Even for the sake of saving five lives at least people thought that in the second. Version of each story we considered.

So this points to a second. Categorical. Way. Of thinking about. Moral reasoning. Categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain absolute moral requirement certain categorical duties and rights regardless of the consequences . We're going to explore in the days and weeks to come the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles . The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism a doctrine invented by . Jeremy Bentham the 18th century English political philosopher . The most important. Philosopher of categorical moral reasoning is the 18th century German philosopher Emmanuel cart. So we will look at those two different modes of moral reasoning. Assess them

and also consider others. If you look at the syllabus you'll notice that we read a number of great and famous books. Books by Aristotle. John Locke Emmanuel Kant Chan Stuart Mill and others. You'll notice too from the syllabus that we don't only read these books. We also. Take up. Contemporary political and legal controversies that raise philosophical questions. We will debate equality in inequality affirmative action. Free speech versus hate speech same sex marriage military conscription or a range of practical questions. Why. Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books but to make clear to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives including our political lives . For philosophy. And so we will read these books. And we will

debate these issues and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other. This may sound appealing enough. But here. I have to issue a warning. And the warning is this. To read these books . In this way. As an exercise in self-knowledge to read them in this way carries certain risks. Risks that are both personal and political . Risks that every student of political philosophy . Has known. These risks springs from the fact . That philosophy. Teaches us. And unsettles us by confronting us with what we already know . There's an irony. The difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already

know. It works by taking what we know from familiar unquestioned settings. And making it strange. That's how those examples work worked. The hypotheticals with which we began with their mix of playfulness and sobriety. It's also how these philosophical books work philosophy. A stranger saw us. From the familiar. Not by supplying new information . But by inviting and provoking. A new way of seeing. But and here's the risk . Once the familiar turns strange. It's never quite the same again. Self-knowledge . Is like a lost innocence. However unsettling. You find. It can never be unthought. Or unknown.

What makes this enterprise difficult. But also riveting. Is that moral and political philosophy. It's a story. And you don't know where the story will lead but what you do know. Is that the story. Is about you . Those are the personal risks. Now what of the political risks. One way of introducing a course like this. Would be to promise you. That by reading these books and debating these issues you will become a better more responsible citizen. You will examine the presuppositions of public policy you will hone your political judgement . You will become a more effective participant in public affairs. But this would be a partial and misleading promise. Political philosophy for the most part hasn't worked that way. You have to allow for the possibility. That political philosophy may make you a

worse citizen. Rather than a better one. Or at least a worse citizen before it makes you. A better one . And that's because philosophy. Is a distancing. Even debilitating activity. And you see this going back to Socrates. There's a dialogue the gorgeous in which one of Socrates is friends Kalak least tries to talk him out. Of philosophizing. CALLATE please tell Socrates philosophy is a pretty toy. If one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life. But if one pursues it further than one should it is an absolute. Ruin. Take my advice callously says. Abandon argument. Learn the accomplishments of active life. Take for your models not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles but those who have a good

livelihood and reputation and many other blessings. So callate please he is really saying the philosophy to Socrates. Quit philosophizing. Get real. Go to business school. And Kalak please did have a point. He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions from established assumptions and from subtle beliefs. Those are the risks. Personal and political. And in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion. The name of the evasion is skepticism it's the idea of all that goes something like this. We didn't resolve once and for all. Either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began. And if Aristotle and Locke in Canton mill haven't solved these questions after all of these years who are we to think.

That we here in Sanders Theater over the course of that semester can resolve them . And so maybe it's just a matter of. Each person having his or her own principles and there's nothing more to be said about it. No way of reason. That's the evasion the evasion of skepticism to which I would offer the following reply. It's true these questions have been debated for a very long time. But the very fact that they have occurred and persisted. May suggest. That though they're impossible in one sense they're unavoidable in another. In the reason they're unavoidable. The reason they're inescapable is that we live some answer. To these questions every day. So skepticism just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection. There is no solution.

The manual cart described very well the problem with skepticism when he wrote scepticism is a resting place for Human Research where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings. But it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement simply to acquiesce in skepticism cockroach can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason. I've tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments. Some sense of the risks and temptations of the perils and the possibilities that I would simply conclude by saying. That the aim of this course . Is to awaken. The restlessness of reason. And to see where it might lead. Thank you very much . Like in a situation that desperate you have to do it you have to do to survive you have to do it you have to do. You have got to do it you have to do pretty much if you've been going 1000 days

without any ome you know someone just has to take the sacrifice I'm asked to make sacrifices and people can survive. All right that's good. But market markets when you say the market. Right. We started out last time. With some stories. With some moral dilemmas. About trolley cars and about doctors and healthy patients vulnerable. To being victims of organ transplantation. We noticed two things about the arguments we had. One had to do with the way we were arguing . We began with our judgments in particular cases we tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind our judgments. And then confronted with a new case we found ourselves reexamining those

principles. Revising in the light of the other. And we noticed the built in pressure to try to bring into alignment. Our judgments about particular cases and the principles we would endorse. On reflection . We also noticed something about the substance of the arguments that emerged from the discussion. We notice that sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act and the consequences in the results in the state of the world that it brought about . And we call this a consequentialist moral reason. But we also noticed that in some cases. We weren't swayed only by the result. Sometimes. Many of us felt that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality

or character of the act. Matters morally . Some people argued that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong even if they bring about a good result. Even if they say five people at the cost of one life. So we contrasted consequentialist moral principles. With categorical ones. Today and in the next few days we will begin to examine one of the most influential versions of consequentialist moral theory. And that's the philosophy of utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham the 18th century English political philosopher gave first. The first clear systematic expression to the utilitarian moral theory

. And Bentham's idea. His essential idea is a very simple one . With a lot of it morally intuitive appeal Bentham's idea is the following. The right thing to do. The just thing to do. Is to maximize. Utility. What did he mean by utility. You meant by utility the balance. Of. Power of. Pleasure over pain. Happiness over suffering. Here's how we arrived at the principle of maximizing utility . You started out by observing that all of us . All human beings are governed by two sovereign masters. Pain and pleasure.

We human beings. Like to pleasure and dislike pain. And so we should base morality on. Where they were thinking about what to do in our own lives. Or whether. As legislators or citizens we're thinking about what the law should be. The right thing to do individually or collectively. Is to maximize act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness. Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summed up with the slogan the greatest good for the greatest number. With this. Basic principle of utility on hand let's begin to test it and to examine it. By turning to another case another story but this time not a hypothetical story.

A real life story. The case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens . This is a 19th century British law case that's famous and much debated in law schools . Here's what happened in the case. I'll summarize the story that I want to hear. How you would rule. Imagining that you are the jury. A newspaper account of the time. Describe the background . SATTAR story of disaster at sea was never told than that of the survivors of the yacht minuet. The ship foundered in the South Atlantic. Thirteen hundred miles from the Cape. There were four in the crew. Dudley was the captain. Stevens was the first mate. Brooks was a sailor. All men of excellent character or so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth

crewmember was the cabin boy Richard Parker 17 years old . He was an orphan. He had no family and he was on his first long voyage at sea. He went the news account tells us rather against the advice of his friends . He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition thinking that the journey would make a man of him. Sadly it was not to be. The facts of the case were not in dispute. The wave hit the ship and the Minion that went down. The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat the only. Food they had. Were two. Cans of preserved turnips no fresh water. For the first three days they ate nothing. On the fourth day they opened one of the cans of turnips and ate it. The next day they caught a turtle together with the other can of turnips. The turtle. Enabled them to

subsist for the next few days and then for eight days they had nothing no food no water. Imagine yourself in a situation like that. What would you do. Here's what they did. By now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in the corner . Because he had drunk sea water. Against the advice of the others and he had become ill and he appeared to be dying . So on the 19th day Dudley the captain suggested that they should all have a lottery that they should draw lots to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused. He didn't like the lottery idea. We don't know whether this was because he didn't want to take the chance or because he believed in categorical moral principles but in any case. No lots were drawn. The next day there was still no ship in

sight. So Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze and he motioned to Stevens that the boy Parker had better be killed Dudley offered a prayer. He told the boy his time had come. And he killed him with a penknife stabbing him in the juggler vein. Brooks emerged from his country interests objection to share in the gruesome bounty. For four days the three of them fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy. True story. And then they were rescued. Dudley describes their rescue. In his diary with staggering euphemism quote on the 24th day as we were having our breakfast . A ship appeared at last. The three survivors were picked up by a German ship they were taken back to Falmouth in England where they were arrested and tried

. Brooks turned state's witness. Dudley and Stephens went to trial. They didn't dispute the facts. They claimed they had acted out of necessity. That was their defense. They argued in effect better that one should die. So that three could survive . The prosecutor. Doesn't swayed by that argument. He said murder is murder and so the case went to trial now imagine you are the jury. And just to simplify the discussion. Put aside the question of law. And let's assume that you as the jury . Are charged with deciding whether what they did was morally permissible or not . How many. Would Vote. Not guilty. That what they did was morally permissible.

And how many would vote guilty what they did was morally wrong . A pretty sizeable majority. Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me begin with those who are in the minority . Let's hear first from the defense. Of Dudley and Stevens. Why would you morally exonerate them . What are your reasons. Yes. I think it's I think it is morally reprehensible but I think that there is between what's morally reprehensible and what makes someone legally accountable. In other words as the judge said what's what's always moral isn't necessarily going to the wall. And while I don't think the necessity justifies. Theft or murder or any illegal act at some point your degree of necessity does in fact exonerate you from any guilt.

OK good. Other defenders other voices for the defense moral justification for. What they did. Yes. Thank you. I just feel like in the situation that desperate you have to do it you have to do to survive you have to do it you have to do. You have got to do what you have to do. Pretty much if you've been going 1000 days without any food you know someone just has to take the sacrifice I'm asked to make sacrifices and people can survive. And furthermore from that let's say they survive and then they become productive members of society who go home and start like a million charity organizations and this and that this and that. I mean they benefit everybody and then you know I mean I don't know if they did afterwards they might have gone in like kill more people or. Whatever but. What if they were just went home and they turned out to be assassins that they were going home and turned out to be assassins. Well you do want to know who they assassinated. That's true too. Spare OK today sounds all right that's good. Marcus Marcus

All right. We've heard a defense couple voices for the defense. Now we need to hear from the prosecution. Most people think . What they did was wrong. Why. One of the first things that I was thinking was if they have been eating for a really long time maybe they the they're mentally affected and so than that that could be used as a defense a possible argument that oh they weren't in the proper state of mind they weren't making decisions they may not otherwise be making. And if that's an appealing argument that that you have to be in an altered mindset to do something like that it suggests that. People who find that argument convincing. Do you think that they were acting in a way do I want to know what you think. You defend them you go right you go to to convict Dr. Yeah I don't think that they acted in a morally appropriate way. And why not what do you say. Here's Marcus. He just defended them

. He said Your daddy said yeah that. Yeah . You gotta do what you gotta do in a case like that. What do you say to Marcus. But in. That there's no situation that would allow human beings to take. To the idea of faith or that the other peoples lives in their own hands that we don't have that kind of power. OK thank you and what's your name. Gregg. Yeah OK. Who else . Are you say. I'm wondering if Dudley and Stephen had asked Richard for Richard Parker's consent . You know dying. Would that exonerate them from from an act of murder. And if so is that still morally justifiable. That's interesting alright consent let's wait wait hang on. What's your name Kathleen Kathleen says Suppose they had what would that scenario look like.

So in the story Dudley is there a pen knife in hand. But instead of the prayer or before the prayer he says . Parker. Would you mind. We're desperately hungry. As Marcus empathizes with were desperately hungry. You're not going to last long anyhow. Now. You can be a martyr. Would you be a martyr. How about it. Parker. Then. Then what did you do what do you think. Would it be morally justified then I suppose. Suppose Parker in his semi stupor says OK. I don't think it would be morally justifiable but I'm one even then even then it wouldn't be now. You don't think that even with consent it would be morally justified. Are there people who think who want to take up Kathleen's consent idea and who

think that that would make it morally justified raise your hand if it would. If you think it would. That's very interesting. Why would consent make a moral difference . Why would it. Well I just think that if he was making his own original idea and it was his idea to start with the would be the only situation in which I would see it being appropriate in any way because that way you couldn't make the argument that he was pressured. You know it's three to one or whatever the ratio is right. And I think that if he was making a decision to give his life then he took on the agency to sacrifice himself which some people might see as admirable and other people might disagree with that decision. So if he came up with the idea that's the only kind of consent we could have confidence in morally then it would be ok otherwise. It would be kind of coerced consent under

the circumstances you think. Is there anyone who thinks that even the consent of her would not justify. Their killing him. Who Thinks That. Yes tell us why stand up. I think Parker will be killed with the hope that the other crew members will be rescue so there is no definite reason that he should be killed because you don't know when they're going to arrest you so if you kill him and kill him in pain do you keep killing the crew member until you're rescued and then you're like No way because someone's going to die eventually . Well the moral logic of the situation seems to be that. They would keep on picking off the weakest. Maybe one by one until they were rescued. And in this case luckily they were rescued when three at least were still alive. Now if. If Parker did give his consent would it be all right. Do you think you know it

still won't be right. And tell us why it wouldn't be all right. First of all cannibalism I believe is morally incorrect. So be inhuman anyway so you. So cannibalism is morally objectionable. So then even on the scenario. Of waiting until someone died. Still it would be objectionable Yes. So me personally I feel like it all depends on one's personal morals. And like we can't sit here like this is my opinion . Of course other people are going to disagree but let's see what their disagreements are and then we'll see if they have reasons that can persuade you or not. Let's try that. Let's. Now. Is there someone . Who can explain. Those of you who are tempted by consent. Can you explain why I consent makes such a moral difference. What about the lottery idea

does that count as consent. Remember at the beginning Dudley proposed a lottery . Suppose that they had agreed to a lottery . Then how many would then say. It was all right. Suppose there were a lottery. Cabin boy lost. And the rest of the story unfolded then how many people would say it was morally permissible . So the numbers are rising if we had a lottery let's hear from one of you for whom the lottery would make a moral difference. Why would it. I think the essential element in my mind that makes it a crime is the idea that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his and that. I mean that's kind of the basis for really any crime. Right it's like my needs my desires are more important than yours and mine take precedent. And if they had done a lottery where everyone consented that someone should die. And it's sort of like they're all

sacrificing themselves to save the rest. Then it would be all right a little grotesque but but morally permissible. Yes. And what's your name. Matt . So. Matt for you. What bothers you is not the cannibalism but the lack of due process . I guess you could say that right. And can someone who agrees with math. Say a little bit more. About why a lottery would make it in your view. Morally permissible . Go ahead. The way I understood it originally was that that was the whole issue is that the Campbell was never consulted about whether or not something was going to happen to him. Even then with the original lottery whether or not he would be a part of that it was just decided that he was the one that was going to die right.

That's what happened in the actual case. Right but if there were a lottery and they had all agreed to the procedure you think that would be OK right because then everyone knows that there's going to be a death whereas you know that haven't we didn't know that this discussion was even happening. There was no forewarning for him to know that hey I may be the one that's dying. Alright now suppose everyone agrees to the lottery they have the lottery. The cabin boy loses and he changes his mind. You've already decided it's like a verbal contract you can't go back on that you've decided the decision was made. You know if you know that you're dying for the you know the reason for others to live you would if someone else had died you know that you would consume them so. Right. But I but then you could say I know but I lost . I just think that's the whole moral issue is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy in that. That's what makes it the most horrible is that he had no idea what was even going on. That had he known what was going on. It would be a bit more

understandable All right good. Now I want to hear. So there are some who think. It's morally permissible but only about 20 percent. Led by Marcus. Then there are some who say the real problem here is the lack of consent. Where the lack of consent to a lottery to a fair procedure or Kathleen's idea lack of consent at the moment of death. And if we add consent then more people are willing to consider the sacrifice morally justified. I want to hear now finally from those of you who think even with consent even with the lottery. Even with a final. Murmur of consent by Parker at the very last moment it would still be wrong. And

why would it be wrong. That's what I want to hear. Yes. Well the whole time I've been leaning towards the categorical moral reasoning and I think that. There's a possibility I'd be OK with the idea of a lottery and then the loser taking into their own hands to kill themselves so there wouldn't be you know an act of murder but I still think that. Even that way it's coerced. And also I don't think that there is any remorse like in Dudley's diary. We're eating our breakfast. It seems as though he's just sort of like. You know that the whole idea of not valuing someone else's life . So that makes me be feel like I have to take the kind of you want to throw the book at him. Well when he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong. Right . So could other any other. Defenders of Burke. Who say it's just categorically wrong. With or without consent yes. Stand up.

Why I think a leader where society say murder is murder murder is murder in every way in our society looks murder down down in the same why you don't think it's any different in any case . Let me ask you a question. There were three lives in state versus one. OK. The one cabin boy who had no family he had no dependents. These other three had families back home in England. They had dependent they had wives and children . Think back to Bentham Bentham says we have to consider the welfare the utility the happiness of everybody. We have to add it all up so it's not just numbers three against one. It's also all of those people at home. In fact a London newspaper at the time and popular opinion sympathized with them . Stevens and the paper said if they weren't motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones at home and their dependents surely they wouldn't have done this.

How is that any different from people on a corner with the same desire to feed their family all think it's any different I think in any case. If that is that is murder and I think that we should look at it on the same life is that it criminalize a certain activity and making certain things seem more vile and savage when in the same cases as all the same it's all the same act and mentality that goes in the murder. Necessity feeds a family so I suppose it weren't three suppose it were thirty three hundred one life to save three hundred. We're in war time 3000 the stakes are even bigger. Suppose it's safe but I think it's the same do you think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do is to add up the collective happiness. You think he's wrong about that. I think he's wrong but I think it's murder in any case. Well then Benjamin has to be wrong. If you're right he's wrong OK and he's wrong. All right thank you. Well done. All right let's step back from this discussion. And. I . Noticed. How many objections have we heard to what they did

. We heard some defenses of what they did. The defense has had to do with necessity. There are dire circumstances and implicitly at least the idea that numbers matter. And not only numbers matter but the wider effects matter. Their families back home their dependents Parker was an orphan. No one would miss him. So if you. Add up. If you tried to calculate the balance of happiness and suffering. You might have a case for saying what they did was the right thing. And then we heard at least three different types of objections. We heard an objection that said what they did was categorically wrong. Mike here at the end categorically wrong. Murder is murder it's always wrong even if it increases the overall happiness.

Of society. A categorical objection . But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong. Is it because. Even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights. And if that's the reason. Where do those rights come from if not from some idea of the larger welfare or utility or happiness. Question number one. Others said . A lottery would make a difference. A fair procedure Matt said. But. And some people were swayed by that. That's not a categorical objection. Exactly. It's saying everybody has to be counted as an equal even though at the end of the day one can be sacrificed . For the general welfare. That leaves us with another question

to investigate why disagreement to a certain procedure. Even a fair procedure justify whatever result flows . From the operation of that procedure. Question number two . Question number three the basic idea of consent. Kathleen got us on to this. If the cabin boy had agreed to himself. And not under duress as was added. Then it would be all right take his life to save the rest. And even more people signed on to that idea. But that raises. A third philosophical question. What is the moral work. That consent does. Why does an act of consent make such a moral difference than an act that would be wrong taking a life without consent is morally permissible. With

consent. To investigate those three questions we're going to have to re simple Oscars. And starting next time we're going to read Bentham and John Stuart Mill utilitarian philosophers . Don't miss the chance to interact on line with other viewers and. Join the conversation. Take a pop quiz and learn a lot more. Is it just Harvard . It's the right thing . For this program is provided by. Additional funding provided

by.