 Hi everyone, I hope you don't mind that I jumped into it today. I wanted to ask you a few questions about the last case I'm betting that most if not all of you agreed with Mill on case number two pulling the lever to You know kill the one and save the five But I'd also be willing to bet the most to be disagreed with Mill About case number three where you mess with the man's machine and arrange for his organs to be donated to five others Okay, so here's the question if you agreed with Mill on case two, but not on case three What's the difference? Maybe you think that the people in the hospital are gonna get an organ just in time But if you think that you are deviating from the case you're trying to change the case so you can avoid the problem I mean if we're gonna say that you might as well say that I could just jump in front of the train and stop it with My bare hands, maybe you want to say that there's something about messing with the machines That's directly killing the person Whereas with the lever you're not directly killing the person. Well, no make no mistake And you mess with somebody's machines and to cause their death. Yes, you're directly killing the person Maybe not as direct as you know, here's a cruise of thought wrapping your fingers around their throat, but The outcome is the same with the lever, right? You're using equipment to kill somebody else This is not a relevant difference. Maybe you think in case three it's murder since it's Undeserved death. Well, I got news for you in case two. It's also murder if what murder is is an undeserved death after all You thought it was wrong to pull the lever in case one That's killing somebody who doesn't deserve it and that's murder It doesn't matter whether there are five people laying on the other track or not in case two case three in case one It's murder Believe it or not. I'm not trying to make you feel guilty I'm not even trying to tell you that you can't be a consequentialist What I am saying is this if you're going to follow mill here and be a consequentialist in case two Well consistency demands that you follow mill in case three as well If you're going to pull the lever and kill the person on the train track in case two Consistency demands that you also in that person's life in the hospital If you're gonna follow somebody like Locke in case three and say that you can't violate that person's rights in the hospital That means that you can't violate that person's rights on the train track either. I wouldn't turn to Aristotle here either I'm not sure what the virtuous person would do in this situation. That's kind of a weakness of virtue ethics Maybe you're going to say that it just doesn't feel right to end the person's life in the hospital Okay, well, that's gonna justify your action. I think you're back to Hume and nobody in the class really liked that consequence Well at this point you're probably pretty frustrated. I understand but remember I'm not gonna tell you how to live your life I'm not gonna tell you which theory to follow I'm only gonna tell you the price and every belief has a price