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

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

  Education

[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.

[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.

[Alex Bob]

Is it just me or Sandel looks like Michael Emerson

[Tony Starks]

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

[Tony Starks]

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

[Federico Jaurrieta]

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

[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.

[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).

[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.