Justice with Michael Sandel (Harvard Lectures)

[Reginus]

A very good introduction to ethics and political philosopy.  There are 12 videos, here is the first one.
[youtube:34gi7hwg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY[/youtube:34gi7hwg]

[SSY]

Interesting dilemma's he presents.

In the case of the track workers, I would divert to kill the one

I would not push the fat man

Nor would I harvest the sleeping guy

I think the difference between the first scenario, and the others, is that the fat man and the sleeping dude have a choice, if they wanted to, they could sacrifice themselves so as to save others, but the lone man on the track would not be able to make that choice. Seeing as how the lone track worker has no choice in the matter anyway, one is obliged to make a choice for him regarding his sacrifice, where as with the other, they could be asked what they wanted to do, so it seems wrong to make the choice for them.

I suppose, according to that chap's definitions, that makes a me a categorical thinker.

Has anyone else who watched them wish to share their choices?

Thanks for posting this by the way, that guy obviously really enjoys lecturing.

[Sophus]

I would not push the fat man

I don't have time to watch all of this at the moment. Are you talking about that scenario where you have to push a fat guy off a train or something to save people on the tracks?

[SSY]

I would not push the fat man

I don't have time to watch all of this at the moment. Are you talking about that scenario where you have to push a fat guy off a train or something to save people on the tracks?

The first scenario involves a runaway train, on course to kill 5 track workers, but you can divert it to only kill a single one on another part of the track

The second involves no fork in the track, but a fat man on a bridge who could stop the train if you pushed him and save the 5 workers.

The third is about 5 dying people (involved in a train crash ostensibly), and a healthy guy sleeping next door, and whether or not you would kill him for his organs, in order to save the others.

[deekayfry]

It makes for fine movie plots, and extreme ethical discussions but lets be realistic, do we face these decisions in our normal every day life?  No we don't.  These ethical illustrations also disregard a person's ability to identify and utilize alternative resources and their ability to make sound snap decisions that achieves the third outcome as to where everyone survives.  We fortunately hear stories of this all the time.

Conversely, it also fails to illustrate a person's inability to be resourceful and make poor decisions where the outcome is where EVERYONE dies ie. the operator makes a fatally mistaken decision.

Now, doctors, police, firefighters, and soldiers unfortunately face these decisions all the time...

[notself]

It's all fine, well, and good, but we don't encounter these situations in every day life...

It makes for fine movie plots, and extreme ethical discussions but lets be realistic, do we face these decisions in our normal every day life?  No we don't.  These ethical illustrations also disregard a person's ability to identify and utilize alternative resources and their ability to make sound snap decisions that achieves the third outcome as to where everyone survives.  We fortunately hear stories of this all the time.

Conversely, it also fails to illustrate a person's inability to be resourceful and make poor decisions where the outcome is where EVERYONE dies ie. the operator makes a fatally mistaken decision.

Now, doctors, police, firefighters, and soldiers unfortunately face these decisions all the time...

Good points.  I listened to the entire lecture related to the train and it does assume that the people working on the tracks are completely powerless and that the only one with the power to act is the engineer of the train.  I say that one can solve the problem by aiming the train at the five workers.  I bring personal experience and observation to the problem.

In my experience of observing road crews of all kinds, not all members of the crew are looking down and working at the same time.  There is always at least one person leaning on his shovel and looking around.  The chances are greater that the group would notice the train in time to get out of the way.  In my experience trains always have very loud whistles.  The engineer need only activate the whistle to warn the worker(s) to give the worker(s) time to get out of the way.  In my opinion, all hypotheticals always leave out the details that make a rational decision possible.

The true story about cannibalism is much more interesting.

[Reginus]

Yes, the trolley car scenario is rather unlikely, but many of the situations discussed in the series are real.  The trolley car scenario none the less serves to illustrate a question that does have real bearings on many situations.

[deekayfry]

I apologize, Reginus.  I spoke out of line.  Now that I watched some of the video, I see that the lecturer uses these as very good examples to highlight ethics.  What I posted previously, in the gentleman's words has "wrecked the entire philosophical point of the argument."

I have learned a lot in just a few minutes.  Thank you.

I also apologize for my initial comments, and I have removed them.

[Reginus]

I apologize, Reginus.  I spoke out of line.  Now that I watched some of the video, I see that the lecturer uses these as very good examples to highlight ethics.  What I posted previously, in the gentleman's words has "wrecked the entire philosophical point of the argument."

I have learned a lot in just a few minutes.  I appreciate the link.

No problem.  Remember to watch the other 11 videos or you'll be missing out on a lot.

[deekayfry]

I apologize, Reginus.  I spoke out of line.  Now that I watched some of the video, I see that the lecturer uses these as very good examples to highlight ethics.  What I posted previously, in the gentleman's words has "wrecked the entire philosophical point of the argument."

I have learned a lot in just a few minutes.  I appreciate the link.  (hides from kdbeats)  You didn't hear that from me

[notself]

The Cannibal story is both fascinating and complex.  You can see the brain cells of the kids start to heat up and crackle.  I haven't watched the whole series.  It is probably time to get back to it.

Harvard should be complimented on the quality of this video.  It is light years ahead of the average online course.

[Reginus]

The Cannibal story is both fascinating and complex.

Here's a thought: what if they had just waited for the boy to die of starvation before eating him?  Since he was the weakest, he was likely to die first.

[Will]

I wish I had more teachers like this in school. He's engaging and manages to present extremely complex issues in an easily understandable way.

Regarding the questions in the first few videos, the reality is this: do the ends justify the means? Utilitarianism presents its case that morality is in the ends, the result can be justification. The fun thing is how you can change people's position on this depending on certain levels of interaction and severity. When the scenario went from changing tracks to pushing an overweight person, despite the fact there was functionally no difference whatsoever, the position of the majority of students changed. Why? It's simple: utilitarianism is bullshit (as Pen and Teller would say). Utilitarianism assumes a single, uniform measure of value which ignores the fact things we value can't be measured based on a single form of value. My value of human life is not necessarily the same as your value of life. Worse still, utilitarianism makes the mistake of direct democracy, introducing to a people the tyranny of the majority. Who was it that once said "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner"? The minority require protections just as the majority, which is why just nations require a constitution limiting the power of the majority and of the state.

Thanks very much Reginus for posting this. You've eaten up my weekend in a very good way.  

[notself]

The most interesting comment in the series is in the introduction when the professor warns the students that this class will change the way they think and they will never be able to go back to their old patterns.  I know this is true because I have sent this link to a fundamentalist Christian to avoid talking religion with her.  She listened to the first hour and refused to listen to any more.  She said she didn't have time but she had the time to send me long proselytizing emails.  I think she stopped listening because the series was taking her out of her narrow, black and white world.

It is great fun watching the students struggle to think rather than just repeat stock phrases.

[deekayfry]

I found it so hard to believe that people did not see an obvious difference between the runaway 5 or 1 scenario and then next scenario you kill 1 to save 5.  It appeared that second scenario was meant to be blatantly obvious.  That it is murder.  The organ harvest was also meant to be blatantly obvious to save five from a healthy human being was also murder.  Yet, many students seemed to over think each one.  Even, one equated one performing genocide on five.

The best student gave the most direct and best answers.  The lecturer tried, as a point to educate everyone, to derail him.  The student did not waver.

Now, one particular scenario was tricky, and he glossed over it.  The scenario where describes you as being a doctor and 5 people approach you.  Four have injuries that aren't immediately life threatening, but if not treated within in a timely manner they will die.  The fifth patient is in immediate danger. The time it takes to treat 4 is the same it takes to treat 1.  In either case, one or four will die.

This, now, is more like the real world