YouTube home Comedy Week on YouTube
Upload

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

Harvard Harvard·1,192 videos
83,560
4,484,348
Like     Dislike 837

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to like Harvard's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to dislike Harvard's video.

Sign in to YouTube

Sign in with your Google Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to add Harvard's video to your playlist.

Uploaded on Sep 4, 2009

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."

  • Category

  • License

    Standard YouTube License

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading icon Loading...

Loading icon Loading...

Ratings have been disabled for this video.
Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.

All Comments (8,758)

Sign in now to post a comment!
  • Durakken

    Many great things were figured out in the course of an afternoon snack. Whether they spent their whole life trying to figure it out or not is irrelevant. The fact is we have more information and more perspectives and we are introduced to a lot more things which make anyone of us far more likely to solve something in an hour than most great minds could ever hope to do in their entire life time.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Durakken's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Durakken's comment.
    in reply to ChoonyNg (Show the comment)
  • ChoonyNg

    His point was, the great thinkers had spent their entire lives trying to solve them. Who are we, to solve them in the course of a SEMESTER." He wasn't saying then if they couldn't, we its impossible for us.

    Stop the hate, know the bloody difference. Unless, of course, if English isn't your main language, then your misinterpretation is forgiven.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate ChoonyNg's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate ChoonyNg's comment.
    in reply to Durakken (Show the comment)
  • Alex Bob

    Is it just me or Sandel looks like Michael Emerson

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Alex Bob's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Alex Bob's comment.
  • Tony Starks

    Although, there is another option: you can kill yourself and thus eliminate the moral dilemma and let God guide the train.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Tony Starks's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Tony Starks's comment.
  • Tony Starks

    In an intractable problem, the solution is least harm. Death will occur in both cases.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Tony Starks's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Tony Starks's comment.
  • Federico Jaurrieta

    I agree, we build upon the teachings of great men.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.
    in reply to Durakken (Show the comment)
  • Federico Jaurrieta

    I believe, that in the first situation the driver of the trolley knows that his car will kill at least 1 person, so by choosing to side track the car, he in fact saves 5 lifes. In the example of the fat man, 5 people are going to die, but you choose to kill 1 to save 5 persons. The result is the same, but the thought process if very different.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.
    in reply to OldSchoolRedBull (Show the comment)
  • Federico Jaurrieta

    I believe that it is morally wrong to renounce our ability to not act on our primal insticts (as survival is). This guys submitted to a more natural state o being, and those I believe it's morally wrong... (that´s not the same as legally accountable).

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.
    in reply to vanmartinmpg (Show the comment)
  • Federico Jaurrieta

    I believe, that (as the students in the video) you should not add more variables to the exercise in order to analyze the morality of the decision. This type of exercise, for them to work, are not to be contemplated with infinite options.

    ·

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.

    Sign in to YouTube

    Sign in with your YouTube Account (YouTube, Google+, Gmail, Orkut, Picasa, or Chrome) to rate Federico Jaurrieta's comment.
    in reply to addingmorequestions (Show the comment)
  • Loading comment...
Loading...

Suggestions

Loading...
Working...
Sign in to add this to Watch Later