If the utilitarianism argument were enforced today, the white collar crimes (which harmed far more people than blue collar crimes, which usually affect a single family/person) would be punished more severely.
I've been watching these videos in my Theory of Knowledge class, very interesting stuff! Although, the students have some silly answers and poor justifications. ;P
One point got me considering. The black dude from south basicly said: "The boy is orfan and wouldn´t be missed, but murder is murder, the hapyness of the magiority becuse they have family and he don´t? What if ´five orfans at england is about to eat the killer son? his son and him is only two right?" But i ask you this: What if seven minutes later they kill the boy comes a ship? What about: If you go we all go? where did argue go?
@FromHiBrasil Interesting questions.... BTW, there was nothing in the pronunciation or comment of "black dude" that would suggest that he is from the South - a rather peculiar and irrelevant assumption.
You are in the car and have to make a choice... kill the 5 people in front of you, that u don´t know, or turn the car onto the side track, to kill the one person, who is your father?
Amazing discussion. If I was driving the trolly I sure as hell wouldn't hit 5 men fixing the track. If the track is broken my trolly would derail and might kill me. As for the cabin boy is he not allowed to have life experiences and a family of his own based solely on the reasoning the others already enjoy those things? Great point by the guy who said he would just allow the worst off die and use those organs rather then kill a healthy man. He solved the problem rather then accept the choice.
girl at 48:10 hella dumb and is thinking way too much out of the box. simple question and simple answer, Yes murder is wrong but to a certain extent and only in very critical circumstances must it be justifiable to do so such as killing the weak to save the rest.
Es interesante ver y escuchar las escusas y moralidad del expositor y los estudiantes participantes en la conferencia, sobre todo increible la medición de esa moralidad, cuando en el país de origen donde se lleva la confrencia, es moralmente aceptada la pena de muerte por diversas causas, justificando esa pena de muerte por inyección letal en beneficio de la sociedad. Vaya.
When he said "trolly car" I knew this film was going to be way, way, way over my head...Then when he said "What would you do?" my head started spinning and then caught fire:(
Most of these questions are totally separated from reality. No one knows what the future will be no matter what this professor claims, he is shamelessly creating false scenarios that cannot exist in reality since no human being can know the future. All someone can do is GUESS any outcome of any scenario, there is no such thing as knowing an outcome of the future unless you are God. Also he presumes falsely that there is only two choices to make in these false scenarios, another falsehood.
@Tantoin The _hypothetical_ scenarios are used to gain insight into morality. So why is he linking what you call "false scenarios" to reality? Well, I don't think he is. Also, you have already answered that question. Asking "is it moral to push someone off a bridge" would yield no meaningful discussion due to the freedom to shape the scenario and outcome in any way one desires. Closed scenarios drives discussion which is central to this lecture series. I highly recommend the rest of the series.
@Tantoin Speaking of shamelessly introducing falsehoods, why on earth would you introduce a falsehood such as the existence of a "God" in to this whole matter?! See, people who are religious have serious problems with questions and debates like these. This is not about any future, do you believe in divine intervention? hahaha! These are hypothetical questions on morality, it's a debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism, it has absolutely nothing to do with relitardism..
Why are people laughing at the switch up from one scenario to another simillar scenario because of a funny segway between the two, is it really funny?
"Once the familiar turns strange, it's never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it, it can never be unthought or unknown."
How are these people on Harvard? umm hello if your on a island you don't have to kill one to feast... there is fish, eight of them surely can find a way to capture fish LOL..... and they call me stupid.
@WarlockTroll They are right to call you stupid. You did not listen. They were never on an island, they were stranded on a boat in the middle of the ocean. It is assumed the FOUR sailors resorted to cannabalism because they COULD NOT find a way catch fish.
With the "boat" incident. Id say that it was immoral to kill the 17 year old, the man who drank the salt water would have died first because of it dehydration (effects of drinking the salt water). No murder necessary. Cant believe that none brought this up. Even tho the man has family he should be held for his actions, and the others even advised him from doing it.
a consent made with everyone like the lottery, is moral because it equally considers each individual's fundamental rights. With only one member's consent or without any consent, it is immoral because these rights are not equally considered. Morality must respect our fundamental.
@akcasama I think you missed the point. Christianity is not proven to be true. Nobody can prove/disprove it. Logically, it is illogical to put your unquestioning faith in a religion. In a sense, it is giving into skepticism. You are accepting that no real truth can be arrived at and thus you resort to skepticism. I'm not disrespecting your religious views, I'm just giving you my opinion (which i am entitled to because you are challenging the message in this video, or rather are refuting it).
@akcasama ...morality from being catholic? what part? killing all the first born? stoning adulterers? or homosexuals? not blending fabrics? working on the sabbath? genocide? rape of Lots virgin daughters? scapegoating (Jesus dying for your sins)? etc, etc. You don't obey all god's commands...because YOU do have socially agreed morals. Thank the GOODNESS in us....not the god(s).
@QQsunny0917 If someone robs me, then I lose money. If I didn't care, give consent, then the only harm done is financially. If I did care, then I get angry. What we care about is how we feel, emotion. If I live a life of pure bliss, but I have an IQ of 0 and everything about my life isn't in my control, I'm still happy. A man with an IQ of 999 who controls everything might have his ups and downs, but not perfectly happy. Moral is not getting negative so it makes a difference.
@QQsunny0917 Because the consent of a person means that you are not forcing them against their will. In the same way that being kidnapped is illegal, whereas running away with someone is not. Therefore if a person consents to being sacrificed for a greater cause (saving the five) then it may lessen the moral implications for some.
@QQsunny0917 Consent makes a moral difference if one takes the idea of self-ownership seriously. Still, in this case, one could argue that the only proper and final "consent to die" must be exercised by an act of suicide (violence against oneself) rather than by contracting with another to have oneself killed or subject to a death lottery. Consent is a fundamental extension of self-ownership according to libertarian philosophy, so that's the modern origin of having consent matter.
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
The border between the two approaches is fluid. Certain limitations create opportunity for win-win resolutions. In this way in the long term the categorical morality is a tool for consequential moralist and is in practice a necessary approach for somebody wanting to optimize total happiness.
In the case of cannibalism I would decide for guilty for the sake of the rule itself and as a judge I would use mild sentence. I believe that the punishment here should be more for the sake of purgation.
"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."
Kill all humans. Save the world. Greatest good for greatest number.
1.the right to live (meaning the rights of any human on this planet)
2.it doesn't really justify the result , if the 3 said that it's was right then it is right and if they say it's wrong then it's wrong ., it's about what your environment ( the 3 ) think
3. it's about out satisfaction it's your consent keep making you feel bad then you wouldnt be ready to do it in the first place
The reason the two situations are different comes down to involvement. In the first scenario you are either involved in killing 1 person or 5 vs the second situation where you are involved in killing 1 or allowing 5 to die. In a neutral universe it wouldn't matter, but speaking from a moral perspective you can only account for your own actions.
@mynameismatt2010 So doing nothing to stop their (the 5) deaths counts as killing them if and only if you're in the trolley? But, you have the same about of control, and thus responsibility. You're just spatially closer in one.
That is a good examples to think about the problems that needs to find the solution quickly . I like this kind of questions. So, thank you for show this video :)
Why should imperfect humans that have little to no overall wisdom nor insight about the future interfere with evitable situations such as this one? I know answers like this one can vary from scenario to scenario, but I believe this scenario would be best left off without human intercourse.
stoping video and not watching it ... the right thing to do ... is always to walk away from violence ... let them kill who ever they want ... it is not up to you to save anyone ... well maybe just your self... don't entertain but be aware of ... and simply walk a higher path
this is group think propaganda.. if u choose to kill the one , for instance a little girl. who has done nothing wrong , too save the 5 .. you are guilty of murder no ways about it... Dont be a slave... LIVE FREE OR DIE.
The lesson is developing critical thinking skills and patterns. There is no definitive answer to either scenario. It required you to step outside your preordained box and check out the exterior. These exercises challenge me to balance my emotional reactions with applicable points of law. Cool stuff.
@TheKarlsruheprotest I think the basic of those philosophy ideals are to persuade you to have many different POWs, then you can think & make a better decision yourself. Or at least have a deeper understanding of any decisions. This is not necessary to have an absolute right answer. Even the greatest thinkers do not fully agree to each others some times. Philosophy just makes you a better thinker.
@sinub801 Thanks for the comment, I agree with you. I guess I am trained in the Engineering side of things that always requires precision and accuracy.
@HeyDko The trolley is specifically used in this case because you can't steer them off of the track. The purpose of this question is to lead you to decide between 1 death and 5 deaths without the possibility of any other option. Then to make you examine why you chose the 1 or the 5. This is usually a 1st or 2nd class in most Introductory courses in Ethics. This question or others similarly constructed are meant to remove the possibility of avoiding the desired decision.
To reconcile the majority decisions in the first and second scenarios, I was thinking maybe: What changed was how responsible the person feels for the tragedy. In the first one, the person is inside a fatal, uncontrolled vehicle, and in the other, the person is at a side on a bridge, where he/she wouldn't feel as responsible if he/she would leave things alone.
I was feeling that there is a selfish reason for the decisions in both cases; maybe, it has do with "is the person the hero?"
This is exactly what the West is doing, sucking up the oil in other parts of the world and killing people so they can live and let others die. What a corrupt concept; reminds me of the refuted darwinism theory "fight to survive".
I would opt to kill the 5 instead of the one, because, If I happened upon the 5 people, if they were killed then it would be an accident, at least for my conscience, but if I deliberately chose to change my direction and kill the one man, then that would be completely my fault, not to mention, that one guy could have spent a good deal of his life contribution to society, like developing a cure for cancer and unjustly I kill him for the sake of many who may not contribute anything to society.
@satoshifan13 I would say that killing the 1 would be just as much of an accident as killing the 5. Doing nothing is a conscious decision just as turning the wheel is a conscious decision. Regarding your other point, what you say may or may not be the case. However, there is no reason to assume such a thing unless you have some kind of evidence. Knowing little in this scenario, I would have to assume that each of the six workers involved would have contributed an equal amount to society.
I enjoyed his opening example, but it might have been more effective if he had accounted for physics and not merely philosophy. I have no idea if a fat man would provide enough stopping power to save the lives of 5 people, and that uncertainty factors into the decision (as does the selfishness of not wanting to go to prison).
As for the cannibalism example, it would be wrong to deprive someone of life when you could simply wait until they died naturally.
@pltatman1 It is a given that you know for sure that the fat guy is going to block the tramway. Physics are not important in that case, it's just to keep it simple. I also thought about "what if the fat guy plan doesn't work" but I think it is an excuse I'm creating in order to avoid taking a decision ;)
To me, the difference between the first (steering the cart) and the second problem (pushing the man) is the way one is involved. Since your involvment in the whole situation as the driver is much more "intense" than "just" stading by the side and watching the whole thing.
I think depending on the intesity of involvment and demaded decisiveness, people tend to think in a more practical or more emotional way.
@Badg000r I suggest people may always chose the least evasive way possible to solve a problem, which simulanteously can be reasoned sufficiently. In the first problem this would be to minimize casualties, in the second one to look away.
Anyway, I am aware of the fact that my hypothesis is very dependent to the social background of the protagonist. I guess a Vulcan (yeah, I'm a geek) would kill the fat man without hesitiation (without any regard of his obesity, too)
Lives of people are not precious but they are priceless, so One multiplied by Priceless OR Five multiplied by Priceless is same, it is a mere illusion that saving five people will do more good.
In the first part of questions you are already involved and you have to choose, but in the second part you are not initially involved in the case and nor you should involve. "Being brave doesn't mean that you go looking for trouble" (THE LION KING)
why are there all these gross videos in the suggestions?
its2in0the1numbers1 5 hours ago
Great experience!!!
LorjanCelaj 1 day ago
If the utilitarianism argument were enforced today, the white collar crimes (which harmed far more people than blue collar crimes, which usually affect a single family/person) would be punished more severely.
lafkdjay 1 day ago
I've been watching these videos in my Theory of Knowledge class, very interesting stuff! Although, the students have some silly answers and poor justifications. ;P
But, these are hard choices to make, indeed.
Malzzel 1 day ago
Your primary sound is very trendy :)
wsoreviews1 1 day ago
@37:35 Rebecca Black
schmezl 2 days ago
Now I know where all the Asian students go after HS!
user7897 2 days ago
698 people lost the lottery jackpot
AbelGarza01 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
12:35 -13:05 - "That's a great idea... But you ruined the philosophical point" made me lul Very interesting video indeed!
mentaltfladdrig 5 days ago
famed !!!
hatfieldlainall 5 days ago
One point got me considering. The black dude from south basicly said: "The boy is orfan and wouldn´t be missed, but murder is murder, the hapyness of the magiority becuse they have family and he don´t? What if ´five orfans at england is about to eat the killer son? his son and him is only two right?" But i ask you this: What if seven minutes later they kill the boy comes a ship? What about: If you go we all go? where did argue go?
FromHiBrasil 5 days ago
@FromHiBrasil Interesting questions.... BTW, there was nothing in the pronunciation or comment of "black dude" that would suggest that he is from the South - a rather peculiar and irrelevant assumption.
57eer 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It´s good to be using DATA for good use instead of making him more human :-)
FromHiBrasil 5 days ago
Comment removed
FromHiBrasil 5 days ago
It´s wrong that i got distracted by the redhead lisining at the lecture?
FromHiBrasil 5 days ago
Better question...
You are in the car and have to make a choice... kill the 5 people in front of you, that u don´t know, or turn the car onto the side track, to kill the one person, who is your father?
comedyfavorite 5 days ago
26:14 DAMN ... whats her number
onxiaftw 5 days ago
@onxiaftw horny much?
yeoksamroyalvilla 4 days ago
@yeoksamroyalvilla no ive just liked her
onxiaftw 3 days ago
i actually like this lecture
onxiaftw 5 days ago
ILL never use a trolley car again or stand next to a rly fat man on a bridge!! XD
onxiaftw 5 days ago
Just how frequently are typically are you modernizing your new tube channel
TurboBusinessPro 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Your current lessons should maintain the actual dictionary beneath the phrase neat !
RouvinTingy324 5 days ago
12:35 -13:05 - "That's a great idea... But you ruined the philosophical point" made me lul Very interesting video indeed!
mentaltfladdrig 5 days ago
it's weird that all these people probably got perfect scores on their SATs
oilandsteam 6 days ago
Amazing discussion. If I was driving the trolly I sure as hell wouldn't hit 5 men fixing the track. If the track is broken my trolly would derail and might kill me. As for the cabin boy is he not allowed to have life experiences and a family of his own based solely on the reasoning the others already enjoy those things? Great point by the guy who said he would just allow the worst off die and use those organs rather then kill a healthy man. He solved the problem rather then accept the choice.
ipwnblaster 6 days ago
3:18
joesoap292 6 days ago
You're darn very good throughout these types of footage .
casebryonvb 6 days ago
Spy is sappin' mah sentry
TheQuestion8 1 week ago
girl at 48:10 hella dumb and is thinking way too much out of the box. simple question and simple answer, Yes murder is wrong but to a certain extent and only in very critical circumstances must it be justifiable to do so such as killing the weak to save the rest.
mmoua7 1 week ago
damm these people that go to Harvard are stupid. They give dumb reasons.
mmoua7 1 week ago
girl at 41:21 is hot. damm lot of fine azz girls at Harvard. You know what they say, educated girls are the freakiest in bed!!
mmoua7 1 week ago
this is a verry good lecture. I am not going to do a law study or philosophy study, but I find these moral thinking interesting.
mathijssmith 1 week ago
Nice film
howmuchforroof 1 week ago
What it comes down to is Taking Responsibility for your actions. and not using the situation as an excuse to kill an orphan
EyeBlowTreez 1 week ago
This is so simple.
EyeBlowTreez 1 week ago
How much time should it go onto make shows like this particular
Kirakonea 1 week ago
thus Maintain upward with premium shows !
OlleFayettev38 1 week ago
Your new voice is so great :d
nutridopolska 1 week ago
Es interesante ver y escuchar las escusas y moralidad del expositor y los estudiantes participantes en la conferencia, sobre todo increible la medición de esa moralidad, cuando en el país de origen donde se lleva la confrencia, es moralmente aceptada la pena de muerte por diversas causas, justificando esa pena de muerte por inyección letal en beneficio de la sociedad. Vaya.
TodosobrelaLey 1 week ago
When he said "trolly car" I knew this film was going to be way, way, way over my head...Then when he said "What would you do?" my head started spinning and then caught fire:(
NOSEmedia 1 week ago
Interesting:( Glad I have a Cal hat on:)
AmericanRiver 1 week ago 4
Most of these questions are totally separated from reality. No one knows what the future will be no matter what this professor claims, he is shamelessly creating false scenarios that cannot exist in reality since no human being can know the future. All someone can do is GUESS any outcome of any scenario, there is no such thing as knowing an outcome of the future unless you are God. Also he presumes falsely that there is only two choices to make in these false scenarios, another falsehood.
Tantoin 1 week ago
@Tantoin The _hypothetical_ scenarios are used to gain insight into morality. So why is he linking what you call "false scenarios" to reality? Well, I don't think he is. Also, you have already answered that question. Asking "is it moral to push someone off a bridge" would yield no meaningful discussion due to the freedom to shape the scenario and outcome in any way one desires. Closed scenarios drives discussion which is central to this lecture series. I highly recommend the rest of the series.
telavasapela 1 week ago
@Tantoin Speaking of shamelessly introducing falsehoods, why on earth would you introduce a falsehood such as the existence of a "God" in to this whole matter?! See, people who are religious have serious problems with questions and debates like these. This is not about any future, do you believe in divine intervention? hahaha! These are hypothetical questions on morality, it's a debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism, it has absolutely nothing to do with relitardism..
smh.
FrontiNulIaFides 1 week ago
what is the philosophical reasoning behind the actions of those responsible for the dislike bar?
BeeTatty 1 week ago
How do you get into this class?How do you get into this class?How do you get into this class?
Broldin 1 week ago
@Broldin Pay a LOT of money.
mytochondriac 1 week ago
@Broldin It's a Harvard class mate ;) haha
pacouj22 1 week ago
I think the professor asks for the names so he can later go to his students list and mark some of them as "keep away, dangerous" :D
HaploidCell 1 week ago
There is a reason that you don't question a soldier's action on the battlefield:
You cannot imagine being in that exact state of mind, in that exact same position - you just cannot recreate the situation and judge it justly.
Granted - a situation like this - in a rowboat, in the middle of the ocean - is easier recreated.
But no-one in the civilised world has gone 19 days without food, under constant sunshine and with the torture of UNdrinkable water all around you.
You cant imagine or judge it.
HaploidCell 1 week ago
he does look like putin
vashiima2012 2 weeks ago
Why are people laughing at the switch up from one scenario to another simillar scenario because of a funny segway between the two, is it really funny?
mcdoogles87 2 weeks ago
Nice talk. Should e on TED. Is this Harvard theathre?
Brittanionf529 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i spend a lot of time making animations, would appreciate it if u checked them out, thanks, that would be cool
Cornolmez 2 weeks ago
@9Lapis9 i totally agree.
Arkimedes999 2 weeks ago
@Arkimedes999 I don't know what you're agreeing to, since I have no idea how to find my comment. That's one reason I spend very little time here.
9Lapis9 2 weeks ago
@9Lapis9 ya youtube is going down the drain. it's going the same way as myspace
the way i find my old comments I open "view all comments" then i press control+F and type in my name.
what you said was with reguard to the intro, how the 1 guy made the choice to be safe and doesn't deserve to die.
i would feel morally obligated to avoid hitting the person who made a good choice
and i'd leave the trolly on it's current path.
Arkimedes999 2 weeks ago
LOVE this! And lol he does look like Vladimir Putin xD
NKindianhobo 2 weeks ago
This is awesome! And lol, he does look like Vladimir Putin xD
NKindianhobo 2 weeks ago
I WOULD DO WHAT I COULD AND WHAT HAPPEN , HAPPENS
RONALDPARLEE 2 weeks ago
WE DO NOT THE OUT COME OF THE FIVE AND I WOULD LET THINGS HAPPEN !!!!
RONALDPARLEE 2 weeks ago
I WOULD GIVE UP MY LIFE FOR WHAT IS RIGHT !!!!!
RONALDPARLEE 2 weeks ago
@RONALDPARLEE MLK Jr said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live." :)
davecraig123 2 weeks ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Justin Bieber is Gay...
alexisperezm 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Once the familiar turns strange, it's never quite the same again. Self-knowledge is like lost innocence, however unsettling you find it, it can never be unthought or unknown."
That was beautiful.
davecraig123 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
davecraig123 2 weeks ago
hi
ahmedshaldan 2 weeks ago
the responses of these students pretty much confirms that having good enough grades to get into harvard doesn't actually make you an itellectual.
ChronicCaptivation 2 weeks ago 3
@ChronicCaptivation
i was thinking exactly the same thing! lol
SAlNTGABRIEL 2 weeks ago
How are these people on Harvard? umm hello if your on a island you don't have to kill one to feast... there is fish, eight of them surely can find a way to capture fish LOL..... and they call me stupid.
WarlockTroll 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
evilelf11 1 week ago
@WarlockTroll They are right to call you stupid. You did not listen. They were never on an island, they were stranded on a boat in the middle of the ocean. It is assumed the FOUR sailors resorted to cannabalism because they COULD NOT find a way catch fish.
evilelf11 1 week ago
@evilelf11 Your in the ocean dumbass, there are 4 people on a boat, there has to be a way to to catch fish, or else they are just retarded cannibals.
WarlockTroll 1 week ago
He looks like Vladimir Putin.
AcruxSolus 2 weeks ago 27
it's always easy to talk about what one would do. i want to see their actions in a real situation.
motionapplied 2 weeks ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
With the "boat" incident. Id say that it was immoral to kill the 17 year old, the man who drank the salt water would have died first because of it dehydration (effects of drinking the salt water). No murder necessary. Cant believe that none brought this up. Even tho the man has family he should be held for his actions, and the others even advised him from doing it.
Atleast thats my point of view.
Walkingsleep 2 weeks ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
I feel absolutely retarded watching this lecture, It goes to show how little intelligence I have when it comes to these dilemmas mentioned.
mattchoules1 2 weeks ago
@mattchoules1 You can address/feel your limit and concluding it - that's intelligence...
Uchiha13senior 2 weeks ago
look at my channel
DUTCHipHop 2 weeks ago
chek my canal
DUTCHipHop 2 weeks ago
a consent made with everyone like the lottery, is moral because it equally considers each individual's fundamental rights. With only one member's consent or without any consent, it is immoral because these rights are not equally considered. Morality must respect our fundamental.
nihilarianstudent 3 weeks ago
How does one go about being accepted into a (non existent?) law school directly from high school?
LadyAziya 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To anyone intersted:
Have a read of my latest article about Death Penalty & Mental illness:
@ januarysboy.tumblr.com
reej10 3 weeks ago
I'm so glad I'm catholic.
No need to sound stupid answering an absurdly basic question on morality.
akcasama 3 weeks ago
@akcasama I think you missed the point. Christianity is not proven to be true. Nobody can prove/disprove it. Logically, it is illogical to put your unquestioning faith in a religion. In a sense, it is giving into skepticism. You are accepting that no real truth can be arrived at and thus you resort to skepticism. I'm not disrespecting your religious views, I'm just giving you my opinion (which i am entitled to because you are challenging the message in this video, or rather are refuting it).
nice1centurion 3 weeks ago in playlist Watch later
@akcasama ...morality from being catholic? what part? killing all the first born? stoning adulterers? or homosexuals? not blending fabrics? working on the sabbath? genocide? rape of Lots virgin daughters? scapegoating (Jesus dying for your sins)? etc, etc. You don't obey all god's commands...because YOU do have socially agreed morals. Thank the GOODNESS in us....not the god(s).
tulipsontheorgan 3 weeks ago
ебата
SLKReaLiSeD 3 weeks ago
Might I - like some others, I will assume - remark that the quality of the subtitles is terrible. If not, then TOO LATE, I just DID!
Haephasto 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
Lot's more business business school videos at academybridge
gerarddanford 3 weeks ago
Are these people from Harvard? Um...lol...I thought they were from community college
j03y2fly 3 weeks ago
@j03y2fly Yes. We are "from Harvard". & You are "from"?
NYC26Lawyer 3 weeks ago
@NYC26Lawyer These students didn't seem like Harvard material. I'm a senior in high school, accepted to Princeton Law School.
j03y2fly 3 weeks ago
@j03y2fly Princeton doesn't have a law school.
Superkimchii 3 weeks ago
@NYC26Lawyer Ok. No you're not. You don't just get accepted into law school from high school. You have a wonderful life :).
NYC26Lawyer 3 weeks ago
morality: kill yourself, law: kill who i tell you to, but only when i tell you.
tulpoy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
tulpoy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
tulpoy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
tulpoy 3 weeks ago
still on the frontpage....
JeremiahLawrenceTV 3 weeks ago
why do they look so... uninterested?
valdas0 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The professor sounds a lot like Kevin Spacey.
squidwombat 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The professor sounds a lot like Kevin Spacey.
squidwombat 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The professor sounds a lot like Kevin Spacey
squidwombat 3 weeks ago
The professor sounds a lot like Kevin Spacey
squidwombat 3 weeks ago
why would consent make a moral difference?
QQsunny0917 3 weeks ago 9
@QQsunny0917 What is the difference between murder and euthanasia?
bomovoid 3 weeks ago
@QQsunny0917 If someone robs me, then I lose money. If I didn't care, give consent, then the only harm done is financially. If I did care, then I get angry. What we care about is how we feel, emotion. If I live a life of pure bliss, but I have an IQ of 0 and everything about my life isn't in my control, I'm still happy. A man with an IQ of 999 who controls everything might have his ups and downs, but not perfectly happy. Moral is not getting negative so it makes a difference.
DarkAura971 3 weeks ago
@QQsunny0917 Because the consent of a person means that you are not forcing them against their will. In the same way that being kidnapped is illegal, whereas running away with someone is not. Therefore if a person consents to being sacrificed for a greater cause (saving the five) then it may lessen the moral implications for some.
TheHowrseHelper 2 weeks ago
@QQsunny0917 Consent makes a moral difference if one takes the idea of self-ownership seriously. Still, in this case, one could argue that the only proper and final "consent to die" must be exercised by an act of suicide (violence against oneself) rather than by contracting with another to have oneself killed or subject to a death lottery. Consent is a fundamental extension of self-ownership according to libertarian philosophy, so that's the modern origin of having consent matter.
IzyphexI 2 weeks ago
@QQsunny0917
philosophers agree that you are the owner of you own soul, hence, negating such topics as the morality of slavery.
spiehole 1 week ago
WTF i couldn't spot anyone sleeping and using the phone
MasicRakv 3 weeks ago
this is taking forever to load
grandexandi 3 weeks ago
"I don't believe in hypothetical situations, it's lying to your brain." - Kenneth Ellen Parcel
grandexandi 3 weeks ago
A justice is being in a fat man, not a thin person or the driver.
KoreanCOSMOPOLITAN 3 weeks ago
This man is coming to my school soon- can't wait to sit in and listen. =)
stealx97 3 weeks ago
kill one person. easy.
Pro abortion, btw.
MovingUpp 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Homosexual activists understand the power of words.
Please visit my channel to watch a one-minute video clip in which popular atheist author Richard Dawkins admits that homosexual activists "hijacked the word 'gay'".
The word "homosexual" is more appropriate and accurate because it, unlike the word "gay", actually describes the behavior/attraction/relationship being discussed.
The word "gay" helps homosexual activists push their agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 weeks ago
The border between the two approaches is fluid. Certain limitations create opportunity for win-win resolutions. In this way in the long term the categorical morality is a tool for consequential moralist and is in practice a necessary approach for somebody wanting to optimize total happiness.
In the case of cannibalism I would decide for guilty for the sake of the rule itself and as a judge I would use mild sentence. I believe that the punishment here should be more for the sake of purgation.
addziu 4 weeks ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
"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."
Kill all humans. Save the world. Greatest good for greatest number.
eDemocracyUK 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
ripkej77 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1.the right to live (meaning the rights of any human on this planet)
2.it doesn't really justify the result , if the 3 said that it's was right then it is right and if they say it's wrong then it's wrong ., it's about what your environment ( the 3 ) think
3. it's about out satisfaction it's your consent keep making you feel bad then you wouldnt be ready to do it in the first place
SuperBoom10 4 weeks ago
brooke, the chick responding to thr black dude, asks a question at the end of every sentence.
So annoying how she raises her voice.
like this?
GrittyMcCheese 4 weeks ago
9/11 muscle head blahblah...brainwashed dummy..how did he made it to harvard. I think there will be a drop out soon.
glower125 4 weeks ago in playlist Philosophy Lecture: Justice (Harvard University)
The reason the two situations are different comes down to involvement. In the first scenario you are either involved in killing 1 person or 5 vs the second situation where you are involved in killing 1 or allowing 5 to die. In a neutral universe it wouldn't matter, but speaking from a moral perspective you can only account for your own actions.
mynameismatt2010 4 weeks ago
@mynameismatt2010 Well emplained. whats also wondering me is why no one says, that not turning the steering wheel can also be defined as an action.
rayjayo 4 weeks ago
@mynameismatt2010 So doing nothing to stop their (the 5) deaths counts as killing them if and only if you're in the trolley? But, you have the same about of control, and thus responsibility. You're just spatially closer in one.
SuperMerlin100 3 weeks ago
That is a good examples to think about the problems that needs to find the solution quickly . I like this kind of questions. So, thank you for show this video :)
Mr3ThreeA 4 weeks ago
Why should imperfect humans that have little to no overall wisdom nor insight about the future interfere with evitable situations such as this one? I know answers like this one can vary from scenario to scenario, but I believe this scenario would be best left off without human intercourse.
Dan178000 4 weeks ago
this is a waste of time....should be reported to the Nati council of disapproval
loversinjapan96 4 weeks ago
stoping video and not watching it ... the right thing to do ... is always to walk away from violence ... let them kill who ever they want ... it is not up to you to save anyone ... well maybe just your self... don't entertain but be aware of ... and simply walk a higher path
teddymarvelle 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
• Happy New Year Everyone •
U bored?
click.my↓name - SeeWhatHappens
swaaartling 4 weeks ago
Trolleys be murdering
anejchy 1 month ago
this is group think propaganda.. if u choose to kill the one , for instance a little girl. who has done nothing wrong , too save the 5 .. you are guilty of murder no ways about it... Dont be a slave... LIVE FREE OR DIE.
Quasarnugz 1 month ago
@Quasarnugz It's not propaganda it's thought provoking.
MrDougiemo 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
lots of asians answering the questions.... :)
robertlplee 1 month ago 13
@robertlplee
you are racialist
majedqahtan 3 weeks ago
@robertlplee
you are racialist
majedqahtan 3 weeks ago
@majedqahtan oh okay thanks SO MUCH for the constructive criticism, i'm gonna go make myself a better person now, brb.
robertlplee 3 weeks ago
@robertlplee I waiting
majedqahtan 3 weeks ago
@robertlplee
Maybe they are Americans, Italians or even Turkish? What makes you think they are Asian?
Marenqo 2 weeks ago
@Marenqo He is talking about the kids in the video.
AcruxSolus 2 weeks ago
@AcruxSolus
I know I am, but I think he is referring to some strange racial quality. Disturbing.
Marenqo 2 weeks ago
Very interesting and excellent video.
Shahinpin2 1 month ago
The lesson is developing critical thinking skills and patterns. There is no definitive answer to either scenario. It required you to step outside your preordained box and check out the exterior. These exercises challenge me to balance my emotional reactions with applicable points of law. Cool stuff.
terry13z 1 month ago
I feel that I did not learn anything from the lecturer. What is exactly the best answer. They are just weighing out pros and cons of different ideas
TheKarlsruheprotest 1 month ago
@TheKarlsruheprotest I think the basic of those philosophy ideals are to persuade you to have many different POWs, then you can think & make a better decision yourself. Or at least have a deeper understanding of any decisions. This is not necessary to have an absolute right answer. Even the greatest thinkers do not fully agree to each others some times. Philosophy just makes you a better thinker.
sinub801 1 month ago
@sinub801 Thanks for the comment, I agree with you. I guess I am trained in the Engineering side of things that always requires precision and accuracy.
TheKarlsruheprotest 1 month ago
@TheKarlsruheprotest It's not about giving you the right answer it's about making you think about pre-conceptions on morality you had before.
MrDougiemo 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
------------ kill my self. --------------- crash against something ----- It's a tricky question. ----
why Michael Sandel don't give the third answer. (3) crash at the first wall you see.
if michael don't give you that choice what is he teaching... --- EGOISM, Selfish MORAL ---
HeyDko 1 month ago
@HeyDko The trolley is specifically used in this case because you can't steer them off of the track. The purpose of this question is to lead you to decide between 1 death and 5 deaths without the possibility of any other option. Then to make you examine why you chose the 1 or the 5. This is usually a 1st or 2nd class in most Introductory courses in Ethics. This question or others similarly constructed are meant to remove the possibility of avoiding the desired decision.
jtbdaddy 1 month ago
or "what is the person's excuse for not stopping the immediate tragedy or the later tragedy or both?".
RZCoronelN 1 month ago
To reconcile the majority decisions in the first and second scenarios, I was thinking maybe: What changed was how responsible the person feels for the tragedy. In the first one, the person is inside a fatal, uncontrolled vehicle, and in the other, the person is at a side on a bridge, where he/she wouldn't feel as responsible if he/she would leave things alone.
I was feeling that there is a selfish reason for the decisions in both cases; maybe, it has do with "is the person the hero?"
RZCoronelN 1 month ago
Very interesting video!!
carpediem23aivlis 1 month ago
I am being educated to think about the meaning of justice; what is the right thing to do!
DonWesley1933 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
This is exactly what the West is doing, sucking up the oil in other parts of the world and killing people so they can live and let others die. What a corrupt concept; reminds me of the refuted darwinism theory "fight to survive".
skilled4ever 1 month ago
interesting content; terrible delivery. the student's faces are irrelevant to the topic.
TimeMcTraveller 1 month ago
kill the system that would have us ponder such
RMCrowley 1 month ago in playlist National & World Affairs
Am I the only one getting a lag on this video ??
OtacDomovine 1 month ago
I would opt to kill the 5 instead of the one, because, If I happened upon the 5 people, if they were killed then it would be an accident, at least for my conscience, but if I deliberately chose to change my direction and kill the one man, then that would be completely my fault, not to mention, that one guy could have spent a good deal of his life contribution to society, like developing a cure for cancer and unjustly I kill him for the sake of many who may not contribute anything to society.
satoshifan13 1 month ago
@satoshifan13 I would say that killing the 1 would be just as much of an accident as killing the 5. Doing nothing is a conscious decision just as turning the wheel is a conscious decision. Regarding your other point, what you say may or may not be the case. However, there is no reason to assume such a thing unless you have some kind of evidence. Knowing little in this scenario, I would have to assume that each of the six workers involved would have contributed an equal amount to society.
mbodude2012 1 month ago
I enjoyed his opening example, but it might have been more effective if he had accounted for physics and not merely philosophy. I have no idea if a fat man would provide enough stopping power to save the lives of 5 people, and that uncertainty factors into the decision (as does the selfishness of not wanting to go to prison).
As for the cannibalism example, it would be wrong to deprive someone of life when you could simply wait until they died naturally.
pltatman1 1 month ago
@pltatman1 It is a given that you know for sure that the fat guy is going to block the tramway. Physics are not important in that case, it's just to keep it simple. I also thought about "what if the fat guy plan doesn't work" but I think it is an excuse I'm creating in order to avoid taking a decision ;)
swl5Gl7gla4O 1 month ago
why this viseo always on home page???
amilagmail 1 month ago
@amilagmail Because the masses need to be confronted with this question for the manmade war coming up in the next year(s)
Burn in hell Illus !
akhiravsdunya 1 month ago
21:30
iiahmadabdullah 1 month ago
anybody else noticed the girl sleeping at 18:10? XDD
iiahmadabdullah 1 month ago
To me, the difference between the first (steering the cart) and the second problem (pushing the man) is the way one is involved. Since your involvment in the whole situation as the driver is much more "intense" than "just" stading by the side and watching the whole thing.
I think depending on the intesity of involvment and demaded decisiveness, people tend to think in a more practical or more emotional way.
Badg000r 1 month ago
@Badg000r I suggest people may always chose the least evasive way possible to solve a problem, which simulanteously can be reasoned sufficiently. In the first problem this would be to minimize casualties, in the second one to look away.
Anyway, I am aware of the fact that my hypothesis is very dependent to the social background of the protagonist. I guess a Vulcan (yeah, I'm a geek) would kill the fat man without hesitiation (without any regard of his obesity, too)
Badg000r 1 month ago
The trolley problem!!! I love asking people this question to see what they'll say :)
johnstonjessie 1 month ago
A big thank you to Woody for linking me this.
CNETZebur 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
Lives of people are not precious but they are priceless, so One multiplied by Priceless OR Five multiplied by Priceless is same, it is a mere illusion that saving five people will do more good.
kashifmogheera1983 1 month ago
In the first part of questions you are already involved and you have to choose, but in the second part you are not initially involved in the case and nor you should involve. "Being brave doesn't mean that you go looking for trouble" (THE LION KING)
kashifmogheera1983 1 month ago
无聊
kimrainman 1 month ago
Jump off the bridge yourself instead of pushing someone else off
jessefanlin 1 month ago
@jessefanlin your not fat enough
IvarNordman 1 month ago
Kill the person who created this question.
manny298 1 month ago 32
@mann