Video

Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 “THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER”

En

Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 “THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER”


#Justice #Whats #Episode #MORAL #SIDE #MURDER

To register for the 2015 course, visit

PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER
If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM

Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces “the greatest good for the greatest number.”
criminal law , Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 “THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER”, Michael Sandel,Justice,Harvard University,WGBH,humanities,philosophy,citizenship

Post Views: 5

Equitable Distribution During Divorce | Conti Moore Law Divorce Lawyers, PLLC

Michael Romano – Portland Oregon Divorce Attorney – Romano Law

What is a Contested Divorce and How Long will it take? – Jensen Family Law

Ask a divorce lawyer: How does Florida divide property?

Jensen Family Law in Mesa AZ | Arizona Divorce Lawyer | (480) 999-2321

38 thoughts on “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 “THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER””

  1. Thanks Harvard you saved me a pile of cash my kid will not be going to there I would send her to a community college before yours she doesn’t need to become a terrorist

  2. 00:08 A trolley car is hurdling down the track with five workers ahead and one worker on a side track.
    03:14 The dilemma of sacrificing one life to save five lives.
    08:43 The moral dilemma of making difficult choices in ethical situations
    11:22 Taking organs from a healthy person to save five others.
    17:17 Reading philosophical books carries personal and political risks
    19:57 Public policy and political philosophy may not always make you a better citizen
    25:00 Organ transplantation and moral arguments
    27:50 Bentham's idea is to maximize utility.
    32:36 Three men killed and cannibalized a cabin boy while stranded at sea.
    35:07 In a desperate situation, necessity can morally exonerate illegal acts.
    39:29 Consent does not morally justify killing
    41:40 Cannibalism is morally objectionable.
    46:01 The main moral issue is the lack of consulting the cabin boy, causing him to have no idea what was going on.
    48:06 Murder is murder, regardless of circumstances
    52:26 Agreement to a fair procedure justifies the result.

  3. I hope to meet this doctor, i have some what different perspective and I'm really want to discuss it with the specialists, at first I'm a dentist, not a philosopher. my answer is confined to the answer of this question if i didn't take an act who will be killed the four people or the the other one? this is the correct thing to do
    because first let's assume that the 4 people are in the orginal direction of the train, if I chosed to change the direction of the train to save the 4 people in this situation i give the death path to someone in previously save condition as the check up patient 😂 . we must see the death as a consequence for each group
    the single person doesn't have logic of death unless an alteration is made by me this make me the killer but if i didn't interfere this will kill 4 person i know that but make the maintenance workers a killers but not me and the 4 persons are not killed but get consequenced by the action of the maintenance worker not me, but let's says that im a member of maintenance team and taking an action is upon me here i will choose the single person to be killed or my self if this will rescue the 5 persons if this possible, and here i must think about how i can minimize the consequences if all of this is because of me
    . lets say what's make me agreed with this because the short sighted and long sighted benefits the long sights will save more people in the future if 4 people are killed by a corruption in maintenance team this will improve the daily check up before launching the train but the short sighted opinion says killing one is better than 4 sacrifices. so please any one can help me here ? I'm really didn't understanding most of tge video because my motger tongue is Arabic as well as i live in Yemen where the war were our childhood teacher 😅 but as they said to me the nerd is nerd, even if he explains the earth end,
    the forest role must be respected by humans in this situation

  6. Quand un enfant arrive la c’est qu’il n traînée pas dans la rue maquillée comme une pute ni passer son temps à regarder hanouma et nabilla

  11. Back in times, a good old citizen of Athends told socrates that “If you don’t wanna conflict with the society, quit philosophy. Get real. Go to business school.”

  12. 2.1.2 The risk of the philosophy/ this course

    It teaches what we already know. It works by taking what we know from the familiar/ unquestioned settings and making it strange. That’s how those examples worked.

    Philosophy estranges us from the familiar. Not by supplying new information, but by invading and providing a new way of seeing. But here is the risk: Once the familiar turns strange, it’s never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence. Once you know it, it cannot be unknown.

  18. say to all do meeting – according to the Bible Genesis and Tanakh 25-27 Esau will serve Jacob, those Europeans will serve the Jews, therefore on the Westare needed – negroes Arabs latinos , therefore there is no wall Mexico, only they can save the United States from the occupation of Trump and Nathan satan – Chabad with the book Tanya according to which Rosenberg created fascism to Hitler, and Trump bribed the court-political scientist Khrushchev, but these Democrats – negroes Latinos , Arabs for Hamas, so in order to prevent the fascist occupation of usa with a dictatorship and then the whole world and Israel, under Trump's victory and Nathan will not leave, they want Hamas and are against the death penalty, and they do not believe occupant Israel. and the Republicans are esau, they are potentially slaves of Israel and for Trump, so the Republican are harming, and only the Democratic party is saving the world and usa from slavery – that's the political science———

    of these universities

  21. These trolley problems involve delicate judgement, so they rely on the details. With deviating the trolley, you still have the scenario that the workers would jump out of the way, which allows you to push some responsibility onto them.

  31. Back here after 3 years of watching it for the first time. Let's see how my perception changed and if it will help me with my 20-year-old crisis 😂

  33. The trolley is a basic matrix and is used to define an individual value. It can be used to define values within groups. The basic matrix shows 5 lives have more value than life. If you change the matrix slightly you'll get different answers. The 5 are strangers and the 1 is your mother. You, the conductor, keeps 1 instead of the 5. This shows the worth of your mother is incalculable. It's a valuable tool. It can be used in hostage scenarios or during wars. There are many applications.

    The trolley is the killing force. The conductor is not. If the trolley continues out of control it would become necessary to blow it up. This is war. This is capital punishment. It saves lives to blow up the train.

    The fat man? Sure they would. They're socialists. The fat man is rich. They'd rob him and redistribute his money. Laughter huh? They'd kill the fat man in fact.

    Organs? The doctor wants money. 5 transplant surgeries makes money. After all 1 life for 5. This group would. Wait till 1 dies? Withhold care from 1 and help along the death. 4 lucrative surgeries. This group would. No doctors are organ donors. Risky.

  35. This conversation aligns so well with the content I've been creating. Love connecting with communities sharing these interests.

Comments are closed.