Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"

dissuade him from philosophizing. Callicles tells Socrates that philosophy is a nice toy if one indulges in it in moderation at the

right

time in life, but if pursued beyond its limits, it is an absolute ruin. Follow my advice that the callicles say, abandon arguments, learn the achievements of active life, take as models not those people who spend their time on these small objections, but those who have a good livelihood and a good reputation and many others.blessings. So Callicles is really telling Socrates to stop philosophizing, to go to business school, and Callicles was

right

, he was right because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions, and from established beliefs.

Those are the risks, personal and political, and in the face of those risks there is a characteristic evasion, the name of evasion is skepticism. It's the idea, well, it's some

thing

like this: we didn't solve, once and for all, either the cases or the principles that we were defending when we started and if Aristotle, Locke, Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all these years Who are we to think that here at Sanders Theater over the course of a semester we can figure them out and then maybe it's just a matter of each person having their own principles and there's no

thing

more to say about it, there's no way to reason. that is the evasion.

The evasion of skepticism to which I would offer the following response: It is true that these questions have been debated for a long time, but the very fact that they have recurred and persist may suggest that, while impossible in one sense, they are inevitable in other. and the reason they are inevitable is that every day we experience some answer to these questions. So skepticism, simply giving up and giving up on

moral

reflection, is not a solution. Emanuel Kant described the problem of skepticism very well when he wrote that skepticism is a resting place for human reason where he can reflect on his dogmatic wanderings, but it is not a resting place for human reason. place of re

side

nce for permanent settlement.

Kant wrote that simply accepting skepticism can never be enough to overcome the restlessness of reason. I have tried to suggest through these stories and these arguments some sense of the risks and temptations of the dangers and the possibilities. He would simply conclude by saying that the purpose of this course is to awaken the restlessness of reason and see where it could lead many thanks. In such a desperate situation, you have to do

what

you have to do to survive. Do you have to do

what

you have to do? You have to do what you have to do.

More or less, if you've gone nineteen days without food, someone has to make the sacrifice, someone has to make the sacrifice and people can survive. Very well what is your name? Frame. Marco, what do you say to Marco? The last time we started with some shops with some

moral

dilemmas about streetcars and about doctors and healthy patients vulnerable to being victims of organ transplants, we noticed two things about the arguments we had: one had to do with the way the we were arguing. We begin our judgments in particular cases, try to articulate the reasons or principles behind our judgments, and then, when faced with a new case, we find ourselves reexamining those principles, reviewing each in light of the other, and noticing the A Despite the pressure to try to align our judgments about particular cases and the principles we would endorse upon reflection, we also noted something about the substance of the arguments that emerged from the discussion.

We noticed that we were sometimes tempted to locate the morality of an act in the consequences, in the results, in the state of the world that it caused. We call it consequentialist moral reason. But we also notice that in some cases we are not carried away only by the results; Sometimes many of us feel that not only the consequences but also the quality or intrinsic character of the act matter morally. Some people argued that there are certain things that are categorically wrong, even if they produce a good result, even if they save five people at the cost of one life.

Thus, we contrast consequentialist moral principles with categorical ones. Today and in the coming days we will begin to examine one of the most influential versions of consequentialist moral theory and that is the philosophy of utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham, the 18th-century English political philosopher, was the first to give the first clear systematic expression to utilitarian moral theory. And Bentham's idea, his essential idea, is very simple and has a lot of morally intuitive appeal. Bentham's idea is the following: what is right and fair is to maximize utility. What did you mean by usefulness? By utility he meant the balance between pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering.

This is how we arrive at the principle of maximizing profit. He began by observing that all human beings are governed by two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. Human beings like pleasure and we don't like pain, so we must base morality whether we are thinking about what to do in our own lives or whether, as legislators or citizens, we are thinking about what the law should be , what is the right thing to do individually or collectively. is to maximize, to act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness. Bentham's utilitarianism is sometimes summarized by the motto "the greatest good for the greatest number." With this basic principle of utility in hand, let us begin to test and examine it by turning to another case, another story, but this time not a hypothetical story, but a real-life story: the case of the Queen against Dudley and Stephens.

This was a 19th century British law case that is famous and much debated in law schools. This is what happened in the case. I'll summarize the story and then I want to hear how you would rule imagining you are the jury. A newspaper of the time described the background: A sadder story of disaster at sea has never been told than that of the survivors of the yacht Mignonette. The ship sank in the South Atlantic thirteen hundred miles from the cape. There were four crew members, Dudley was the captain Stephens was the first officer Brooks was a sailor, all men of excellent character, or so the newspaper account tells us.

The fourth crew member was the cabin boy, Richard Parker, aged seventeen. He was an orphan, had no family and was on his first long sea voyage. It was, the news tells us, rather against the advice of his friends. He went in the hope of his youthful ambition, thinking that the journey would make him a man. Unfortunately this was not the case, the facts of the case were not in dispute, a wave hit the ship and the Mignonette sank. The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat. The only food they had was two cans of preserved turnips without fresh water.

The first three days they did not eat anything. On the fourth day, they opened one of the cans of turnips and ate it. The next day they captured a turtle along with the other can of turnips. The turtle allowed 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 this, what would you do? This is what they did now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in a corner because he had drunk sea water against the advice of the others and had become ill and seemed to be dying so on the nineteenth Dudley, the captain , suggested that everyone should have a lottery.

That everyone should cast lots to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused, he didn't like the idea of ​​the lottery, we don't know if it was because he didn't want to take that risk or because he believed in categorical moral principles, but in any case he didn't draw lots. The next day there was still no ship in sight, so Dudley told Brooks to look away and indicated to Stephens that they had better kill the Parker boy. Dudley offered a prayer and told the boy that his time had come and killed him with a penknife by stabbing him in the jugular vein.

Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share the gruesome reward. For four days the three fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy. True story. And then they were rescued. Dudley describes his rescue in his diary with an astonishing understatement, quote: "On the twenty-fourth, while we were at breakfast, a ship finally appeared." 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 became a state witness. Dudley and Stephens went to trial. They did not question the facts, they stated that they had acted out of necessity, that was their defense, they argued that, in effect, it was better that one died so that three could survive.

The prosecutor was not carried away by that argument. He said that

murder

is

murder

and that is why the case went to trial. Now imagine that you are the jury, and to simplify the discussion, leave a

side

the question of law and 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, because what they did was morally permissible? And how many would vote guilty because what they did was morally wrong? A fairly considerable majority. Now let's see what people's reasons are and let me start with those who are in the minority.

Let's hear Dudley and Stephens' defense first. Why would you morally exonerate them? What are your reasons? I think it's morally reprehensible, but I think there's a distinction between what's morally reprehensible and what makes someone legally responsible; in other words, the night the judge said that what is always moral is not necessarily against the law, and while I don't If you think that necessity justifies theft or murder of any illegal act, at some point your degree of necessity actually exonerates you from any blame. OKAY. Other defenders, other voices for defense? Moral justifications for what they did? Yes, thank you I just feel like I'm in such a desperate situation that you have to do what you have to do to survive.

You have to do what you have to do, you have to do what you have to do, more or less. If you've gone nineteen days without food, you know that someone just has to make the sacrifice, they have to make sacrifices and people can survive and, furthermore, from that let's say they survived and then they become productive returning members of society. home and then they start. like a million charities and this and that and this and that, I mean they benefit everyone in the end, so I don't know what they did next, I mean they could have gone on and killed more people, but whatever. that?

What if they came home and turned out to be murderers? What if they came home and turned out to be murderers? You would want to know who they murdered. That's also true, it's fair, I would like to know who they murdered. Okay, what's your name? Frame. We have heard from the defense, a couple of voices in favor of the defense, now we need to hear from the prosecution. Most people think what they did was wrong, why? One of the first things I thought was, well, if they haven't eaten for a long time, maybe then they're mentally impaired and that could be used for the defense, a possible argument that, oh, they weren't in a proper state of mind. , they were making decisions they wouldn't otherwise make, and if that's an attractive argument that you have to have an altered mindset to do something like that, it suggests that people who find that argument compelling believe they're acting immorally.

But I want to know what you think you're defending and 0:37:41.249,0:37:45.549 you voted to convict, right? Yeah, I don't think they acted in a morally appropriate way. And why not? What are you saying? Here's Marcus, he just defended them, he said, you heard what he said, yes, I did, yes, that you have to do what you have to do in a case like that. What do you say to Marco? They didn't, that there is no situation that allows human beings to take the idea of ​​destiny or other people's lives into their own hands, that we don't have that kind of power.

Well, okay, thanks and what's your name? Britt? Well. who else? What are you saying? Stand up, I wonder if Dudley and Stephens would have asked for Richard Parker's consent to, you know, die, would that exonerate them of an act of murder, and if so, is it still morally justifiable? That's interesting, okay, wait, what's your name? Kathleen. Kathleen says: Suppose, what would that scenario be like? So in the story, Dudley is there, penknife in hand, but instead of the sentence or before the sentence, he says: Parker, would you mind if we're desperately hungry? Marcus relates that we are desperately hungry, you are not.

Anyway, you are going to last a long time, you can be a martyr, would you be a martyr? What do you think, Parker? So what do you think he would be morally justified then? Suppose Parker in his semi-stupor says, "Okay, I don't think it's morally justifiable, but I wonder." Even then, even then wouldn't it be? No. You don't think that even with consent he would be morally justified. Are there people who think that they want to take up the idea of ​​Kathleen's consent and who think that thatwould it be morally justified? Raise your hand if you think so.

That is very interesting. Why would consent make a moral difference? Because I would do? Well, I just think that if he was creating his own original idea and it was his idea to begin with, then that would be the only situation where I would see it appropriate anyway 0:40:25.940,0:40:28.359 because De That way you couldn't argue that he was pressured, you know, it's three to one or whatever the ratio is, and I think if he was making the decision to give his life, then he took on the agency to sacrifice himself, which some people might consider it admirable and others may not agree with that decision.

So if he came up with the idea that that's the only kind of consent we can morally rely on, then that would be fine, otherwise it would be some kind of forced consent under the circumstances you believe. Does anyone think that even Parker's consent wouldn't justify killing him? Who thinks that? Yeah, tell us why, stand up, I think. Parker would be killed in the hope that the other crew members would be rescued, so there's no definitive reason for him to be killed because you don't know when they're going to be rescued, so that if you kill him, you are killing him.

In vain do you keep killing a crew member until you are rescued and then you are left with no one? Why is someone going to die eventually? Well, the moral logic of the situation seems to be that. That they would continue eliminating the weakest ones perhaps, one by one, until they were rescued and in this case fortunately when at least three were still alive. Now, if Parker gave his consent, do you think everything would be okay or not? No, it still wouldn't be right. Tell us why that wouldn't be okay. First of all, I think cannibalism is morally wrong, so you shouldn't eat a human anyway.

So cannibalism is morally objectionable on the outside, so even in the scenario of waiting until someone died, it would be objectionable. Yes, I personally feel that it all depends on one's personal morals, that we can't just, that this is just my opinion, of course other people will not agree. Well, let's listen to what their disagreements are and then we will see if they have reasons that can persuade you or not. Let's try that. Now is there anyone who can explain, those of you who are tempted by consent, can you explain why consent makes such a moral difference?

What about the lottery idea that counts as consent? Remember that at first Dudley proposed a lottery. Suppose they had accepted a lottery and then how many would say it was okay? Let's say there was a lottery, the cabin boy lost, and the rest of the story unfolded. How many people would say that is morally permissible? So the numbers are increasing if we add 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 opinion, that makes it a crime is the idea that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his, and that's sort of the basis of any crime, right? ?

It's like my needs, my desire were more important than yours and mine and if they had done a lottery, if everyone had accepted that someone died and it's like everyone was sacrificing themselves to save the rest, then would it be okay? ? A little grotesque but, but morally permissible? Yes what is your name? Mate. So, Matt, what bothers you is not the cannibalism, but the lack of due process. I guess you could say that. Can anyone who agrees with Matt say a little more about why a lottery would make it, in their opinion, morally permissible? The way I originally understood it was that that was the problem, that the cabin boy was never consulted about whether or not something was going to happen to him, although with the original lottery whether or not he would be part of it.

It was simply decided that he was the one who was going to die. Yes, that's what happened in the real case, but if there was a lottery and everyone agreed to the procedure, do you think it would be okay? Of course, because everyone knows there will be a death, while the cabin boy didn't even know this discussion was happening, there was no warning for him to know that, hey, I might be the one dying. Okay, now suppose everyone agrees to the lottery, they have the lottery, and the cabin boy loses if he changes his mind. You've already decided, it's like a verbal contract, you can't back out.

You've decided that the decision was made, you know, if you know that you're dying for the reason that others live, you would, you know that if that other person had died, you know that you would consume them, so, but then he could say that I know, but I lost. I just think that's the moral issue, that the cabin boy wasn't consulted and that's what makes it more horrible, is that he didn't even have a clue what was going on, that if he had known what was going on it would be a little more understandable. . Alright, alright, now I want to listen, there are some who think it's morally permissible, but only about twenty percent, led by Marcus, then there are some who say the real problem here is the lack of consent, whether the lack consent for a lottery. to a fair procedure or Kathleen's idea, the lack of consent at the time 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 that even with consent, even with a lottery, even with a final murmur of consent from Parker at the last minute, it would still be wrong and why it would be wrong, that's what I want to hear. . . Well, all along I have been leaning towards categorical moral reasoning and I think there is a possibility that I would agree with the idea of ​​the lottery and then the loser would take the initiative to commit suicide so that there would not be an act of murder, but I still think that even in that way it's coerced and I also don't think there's any remorse like in Dudley's diary, we're having breakfast, it seems like he's like, oh, you know, that whole idea of ​​not valuing another's life. person makes me feel like I have to take a categorical stance.

You want to throw the book at him. when you lack remorse or a feeling of having done something wrong. Good. Alright, there are also other advocates who say it's categorically wrong, with or without consent, yes, stand up. Because? I think certainly the way our society is set up, murder is murder, murder is murder and all the ways our society sees it from the same perspective and I don't think it's any different. . Well, now let me ask you a question, there were three lives at stake versus one, that of the cabin boy, he had no family, he had no dependents, these other three had families in England, they had dependents, they had wives. and the children remember Bentham, Bentham says that we have to consider the well-being, the usefulness, the happiness of everyone.

We have to add it all up so that it's not just the numbers three against one, but also all those people at home. In fact, the London newspaper at the time and popular opinion were sympathetic to them. Dudley in Stephens and the newspaper said that if they were not motivated. Out of love and concern for their loved ones at home and dependents, they surely would not have done this. Yes, and how is that different from the people on the corner who try to have the same desire to feed their family? I don't think it's any different.

I think that in any case, if I'm murdering you to improve my status, that's murder and I think we should see all of that the same way. Instead of criminalizing certain activities and making certain things seem more violent and savage when in that very case it is the same act and the same mentality that comes with murder, a necessity to feed their families. Suppose there were not three, suppose there were thirty, three hundred, one life to save three hundred or in longer time, three thousand or suppose the stakes were even higher. Suppose the stakes were even higher.

I think it's still the same deal. Do you think Bentham was wrong when he said that the correct thing to do is add up accumulated happiness? Do you think he's wrong about that? I don't think he's wrong, but I think a murder is a murder in any case. Well then Bentham has to be wrong, if you're right he's wrong. Okay, so he's wrong. Very good thank you, well done. All right, let's step back from this discussion and look at how many objections we've heard to what they did. we heard some defenses of what they did the defense has had to do with necessity, dire circumstances and, at least implicitly, the idea that numbers matter and not only numbers matter but the broader effects matter their families at home , his dependents Parker was an Orphan, no one would miss him. so if you add up, if you try to calculate the balance between happiness and suffering, you could have arguments to say that what they did was the right thing, so we hear at least three different types of objections, we hear one objection that says what they did. he was categorically wrong, right here at the end, categorically wrong.

Murder is murder, it is always wrong, even if it increases the general happiness of society, the categorical objection. But we still have to investigate why murder is categorically wrong. Is it because even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights? And if that is the reason, where do those rights come from if not from some broader idea of ​​well-being, usefulness, or happiness? Question number one. Others said a lottery would make a difference with a fair procedure, Matt said. And some people got carried away with that. That's not exactly a categorical objection, but rather it says that everyone should be considered equal even though, at the end of the day, one may be sacrificed for the general well-being.

That leaves us with another question to investigate: Why does agreement with a certain procedure, even a fair procedure, justify any results that follow from the operation of that procedure? Question number two. and question number three the basic idea of ​​consent. Kathleen led us to this. If the cabin boy had accepted it himself and not under duress as was added, then it would be okay to take his own life to save the rest. Even more people embraced that idea, but that raises a third philosophical question: What moral work does consent do? Why does an act of consent make such a moral difference that an act that would be wrong, taking a life, without consent is morally permissible with consent?

To investigate those three questions we are going to have to read some philosophers and, starting next time, we will read Bentham and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers. Don't miss the opportunity to interact online with other Justice viewers, join the conversation, take a pop quiz, watch lectures you missed, and much more. Visit www.

justice

harvard.org. It's the right thing to do. Funding for the program comes from Additional Funding provided by