01. O lado moral do assassinato

00:25:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDc2KZzRWD8

Zusammenfassung

TLDRThis lecture by Michael Sandel introduces complex moral dilemmas through the trolley problem, examining how individuals choose between saving one life or five—an exercise that pits consequentialist reasoning against categorical moral principles. The discussion reveals a tension between the logical calculation of outcomes and the innate moral aversion to actively causing harm. Various scenarios prompt further debate on ethical duties, the nature of sacrifice, and implications for real-life situations, while the lecturer warns of the personal and political costs of engaging with philosophical thought. Ultimately, the course aims to provoke critical reflection on moral reasoning and its application in everyday decisions and societal issues.

Mitbringsel

  • 🚂 A trolley car scenario illustrates moral choices.
  • 🗳️ Majority favored saving five over one.
  • 👥 Pushing the fat man highlights personal responsibility.
  • 🤔 Moral reasoning involves more than just outcomes.
  • 📜 Consequentialism vs Categorical reasoning is key.
  • 🧠 Engaging in philosophy risks unsettling beliefs.
  • 📚 Course covers both historical and contemporary issues.
  • 💡 Self-knowledge gained may lead to loss of innocence.
  • ⚖️ Ethics plays a significant role in public life.
  • 🔍 Skepticism isn't a solution for moral reflection.

Zeitleiste

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    The discussion begins with a trolley problem scenario where you must decide whether to turn the trolley car to kill one worker instead of five. Most participants agree on saving five lives, leading to discussions about moral reasoning.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    Responses from participants reveal that the majority support sacrificing one for five, citing moral grounds like historical examples. However, some warn that such reasoning could justify harmful ideologies.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    A second scenario challenges the first: instead of being the driver, you're a bystander who can push a fat man to save five. Most do not agree to push the man, creating an inconsistency in the players' moral judgments.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    The conversation shifts to being a doctor faced with choosing to save either one severely injured patient or five moderately injured ones, further complicating the moral decisions surrounding active choice versus passive outcomes.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:19

    The risks of studying moral philosophy are discussed, emphasizing that engaging with these dilemmas can lead to unsettling self-knowledge. The course aims to provoke thought and reflection on individual moral convictions while recognizing the ongoing debates in moral philosophy.

Mehr anzeigen

Mind Map

Video-Fragen und Antworten

  • What is the main moral dilemma presented in the lecture?

    The main dilemma is whether to switch a trolley onto a track where one person stands instead of five, leading to a debate on the value of individual lives.

  • What are the two moral reasoning principles discussed?

    Consequentialism, which focuses on outcomes, and categorical reasoning, which emphasizes duties regardless of outcomes.

  • Why did most people favor turning the trolley onto the side track?

    Most people believed it was better to save five lives at the cost of one.

  • What is a key aspect of the second trolley scenario involving the fat man?

    In this scenario, pushing the fat man necessitates direct action, raising ethical concerns about personal involvement in causing harm.

  • How do these moral dilemmas relate to real-life situations?

    They illustrate the complexities of ethical decision-making in life-and-death situations, similar to those faced in medical or legal contexts.

  • What warnings does the lecturer provide about studying political philosophy?

    Philosophy may unsettle familiar beliefs and could make someone a worse citizen temporarily before enhancing their understanding.

  • Who are some key philosophers mentioned in the lecture?

    Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham are highlighted for their contributions to categorical and consequentialist moral reasoning, respectively.

  • What is the ultimate goal of the course?

    To awaken students' moral reasoning and engage with complex ethical questions about personal and political life.

  • How does the lecture define skepticism in moral philosophy?

    Skepticism involves resignation in moral debates, suggesting there are no definitive answers, which the lecturer argues is not a viable position.

  • What does the lecturer mean by self-knowledge being like lost innocence?

    Once familiar moral concepts are challenged, they can't be unthought, affecting one's perspective permanently.

Weitere Video-Zusammenfassungen anzeigen

Erhalten Sie sofortigen Zugang zu kostenlosen YouTube-Videozusammenfassungen, die von AI unterstützt werden!
Untertitel
en
Automatisches Blättern:
  • 00:00:03
    [Music]
  • 00:00:11
    har Justice Michael
  • 00:00:24
    Sand this is a course about Justice and
  • 00:00:27
    we begin with a story suppose you're the
  • 00:00:30
    driver of a trolley car and your trolley
  • 00:00:33
    car is hurdling down the track at 60 M
  • 00:00:35
    an hour and at the end of the track you
  • 00:00:38
    notice five workers working on the track
  • 00:00:41
    you try to stop but you can't your
  • 00:00:44
    brakes don't work you feel desperate
  • 00:00:47
    because you know that if you crash into
  • 00:00:50
    these five workers they will all die
  • 00:00:53
    let's assume you know that for
  • 00:00:56
    sure and so you feel helpless until you
  • 00:01:00
    notice that there is off to the right a
  • 00:01:03
    side track and at the end of that track
  • 00:01:07
    there's one worker working on the track
  • 00:01:11
    your steering wheel works so you can
  • 00:01:15
    turn the trolley car if you want to onto
  • 00:01:18
    the Sid
  • 00:01:19
    trck killing the one but sparing the
  • 00:01:24
    five here's our first
  • 00:01:27
    question what's the right thing to do
  • 00:01:31
    what would you do let's take a
  • 00:01:33
    poll how many would turn the trolley car
  • 00:01:38
    onto the Sidetrack raise your
  • 00:01:43
    hands how many wouldn't how many would
  • 00:01:46
    go straight
  • 00:01:49
    ahead keep your hands up those of you
  • 00:01:51
    who would go straight
  • 00:01:55
    ahead a handful of people would the vast
  • 00:01:58
    majority would turn
  • 00:02:00
    let's hear first now we need to begin to
  • 00:02:03
    investigate the reasons why you think
  • 00:02:06
    it's the right thing to do let's begin
  • 00:02:08
    with those in the majority who would
  • 00:02:11
    turn to go onto the
  • 00:02:13
    Sidetrack why would you do it what would
  • 00:02:16
    be your reason who's willing to
  • 00:02:18
    volunteer a
  • 00:02:21
    reason go ahead stand up um because it
  • 00:02:25
    it can't be right to kill five people
  • 00:02:27
    when you can only kill one person
  • 00:02:29
    instead
  • 00:02:31
    it wouldn't be right to kill five if you
  • 00:02:34
    could kill one person
  • 00:02:38
    instead that's a good reason that's a
  • 00:02:41
    good
  • 00:02:44
    reason who else does everybody agree
  • 00:02:47
    with that
  • 00:02:51
    reason go
  • 00:02:52
    ahead um well I was think is the same
  • 00:02:54
    reason on um 911 we regard the people
  • 00:02:57
    who who flew the plane into the uh
  • 00:02:59
    Pennsylvania fi as Heroes because they
  • 00:03:02
    chose to kill the people in the plane
  • 00:03:04
    and not uh kill more people in uh big
  • 00:03:07
    buildings so the principle there was the
  • 00:03:09
    same on 911 it's a tragic circumstance
  • 00:03:13
    but better to kill one and so that five
  • 00:03:16
    can live is that the reason most of you
  • 00:03:18
    had those of you who would turn
  • 00:03:22
    yes let's hear now from those in the
  • 00:03:26
    minority those who wouldn't turn
  • 00:03:31
    yes well uh I think that's the same type
  • 00:03:34
    of mentality that justifies genocide and
  • 00:03:36
    totalitarianism in order to say save one
  • 00:03:39
    type of race you wipe out the
  • 00:03:41
    other so what would you do in this case
  • 00:03:44
    you would to
  • 00:03:46
    avoid the horrors of genocide you would
  • 00:03:50
    crash into the five and kill
  • 00:03:54
    them presumably yes you yeah okay who
  • 00:04:01
    else that's a brave answer thank
  • 00:04:04
    you let's
  • 00:04:07
    consider another trolley car
  • 00:04:11
    case and see
  • 00:04:15
    whether those of you in the
  • 00:04:18
    majority want to adhere to the
  • 00:04:22
    principle better that one should die so
  • 00:04:24
    that five should live this time you're
  • 00:04:26
    not the driver of the trolley car you're
  • 00:04:28
    an onlooker
  • 00:04:30
    you're standing on a bridge overlooking
  • 00:04:32
    a trolley car
  • 00:04:33
    track and down the track comes a trolley
  • 00:04:36
    car at the end of the track are five
  • 00:04:40
    workers the brakes don't work the
  • 00:04:44
    trolley car is about to carine into the
  • 00:04:46
    five and kill them and now you're not
  • 00:04:49
    the driver you really feel helpless
  • 00:04:53
    until you notice standing next to
  • 00:04:57
    you leaning over
  • 00:05:00
    the bridge is a very fat
  • 00:05:06
    man
  • 00:05:08
    and you could give him a
  • 00:05:14
    shove he would fall over the bridge onto
  • 00:05:17
    the
  • 00:05:19
    track right in the way of the trolley
  • 00:05:23
    car he would die but he would spare the
  • 00:05:27
    five now
  • 00:05:31
    how many would push the fat man over the
  • 00:05:34
    bridge raise your
  • 00:05:39
    hand how many
  • 00:05:42
    wouldn't most people
  • 00:05:45
    wouldn't here's the obvious question
  • 00:05:48
    what became of the
  • 00:05:51
    principle better to save five lives even
  • 00:05:54
    if it means sacrificing one what became
  • 00:05:56
    of the principle that almost everyone
  • 00:05:58
    endorsed in the first case I need to
  • 00:06:02
    hear from someone who was in the
  • 00:06:03
    majority in both cases how do you
  • 00:06:06
    explain the difference between the two
  • 00:06:09
    yes the um second one I guess involves
  • 00:06:12
    an active choice of uh pushing the
  • 00:06:14
    person down which um I guess the that
  • 00:06:17
    person himself would otherwise uh not
  • 00:06:20
    have been involved in this situation at
  • 00:06:21
    all and so to uh choose on his behalf I
  • 00:06:25
    guess to uh uh involve him in something
  • 00:06:29
    that he otherwise would have escaped is
  • 00:06:31
    um I guess more than what you have in
  • 00:06:34
    the first case where the three parties
  • 00:06:36
    the the driver and the the two sets of
  • 00:06:39
    workers are um already I guess in the
  • 00:06:41
    situation but the guy working the one on
  • 00:06:44
    the track off to the side he didn't
  • 00:06:47
    choose to sacrifice his life any more
  • 00:06:49
    than the fat man did did
  • 00:06:53
    he that's true but he was on the tracks
  • 00:06:56
    and you this guy was on the bridge
  • 00:07:02
    go ahead you can come back if you want
  • 00:07:05
    all right it's a hard question all right
  • 00:07:07
    you did well you did very well it's a
  • 00:07:09
    hard question um who else can find a way
  • 00:07:15
    of
  • 00:07:17
    reconciling the reaction of the majority
  • 00:07:19
    in these two cases yes well I guess um
  • 00:07:23
    in the first case where you have the one
  • 00:07:25
    worker and the
  • 00:07:26
    five uh it's it's choice between those
  • 00:07:29
    two and you have to make a certain
  • 00:07:30
    choice and people are going to die
  • 00:07:32
    because of the trolley car not
  • 00:07:33
    necessarily because of your direct
  • 00:07:35
    actions the trolley car is a Runway
  • 00:07:37
    thing and and you're making a split
  • 00:07:38
    second choice whereas pushing the fat
  • 00:07:41
    man over is an actual Act of murder on
  • 00:07:43
    your part you have control over that
  • 00:07:46
    whereas you may not have control over
  • 00:07:48
    the trolley car so I think it's a
  • 00:07:50
    slightly different situation all right
  • 00:07:52
    who has a reply is that is no that's
  • 00:07:55
    that's good who has a way who wants to
  • 00:07:57
    reply is that a way out
  • 00:08:00
    this um I don't think that's a very good
  • 00:08:02
    reason because you choose to it's either
  • 00:08:05
    way you have to choose who dies because
  • 00:08:07
    you either choose to turn and kill the
  • 00:08:08
    person which is an active conscious
  • 00:08:10
    thought to turn or you choose to push
  • 00:08:13
    the fat man over which is also an active
  • 00:08:15
    conscious action so either way you're
  • 00:08:17
    making a
  • 00:08:18
    choice do you want to reply well I'm I'm
  • 00:08:22
    not really sure that that's the case it
  • 00:08:24
    just still seems kind of different the
  • 00:08:25
    act of actually pushing someone over
  • 00:08:27
    onto the tracks and killing him you are
  • 00:08:30
    actually killing him yourself you're
  • 00:08:32
    pushing him with your own hands you're
  • 00:08:34
    pushing him and that's different than
  • 00:08:36
    steering something that is going to
  • 00:08:38
    cause death into another you know it
  • 00:08:41
    doesn't really sound right saying it now
  • 00:08:44
    I'm up here but it's good what's your
  • 00:08:46
    name Andrew Andrew let me ask you this
  • 00:08:48
    question Andrew
  • 00:08:50
    yes
  • 00:08:53
    suppose standing on the bridge next to
  • 00:08:56
    the fat man I didn't have to push him
  • 00:08:58
    suppose he were standing in over a trap
  • 00:09:00
    door that I could open by turning a
  • 00:09:02
    steering wheel like
  • 00:09:08
    that would you turn for for some reason
  • 00:09:12
    that that still just seems more wrong
  • 00:09:15
    right I mean maybe if you accidentally
  • 00:09:17
    like leaned into the steering wheel or
  • 00:09:19
    something like
  • 00:09:21
    that but uh or or say that the car is is
  • 00:09:25
    hurdling towards a switch that will drop
  • 00:09:27
    the
  • 00:09:28
    Trap um
  • 00:09:30
    then then I could agree with that fair
  • 00:09:31
    enough it still
  • 00:09:33
    seems wrong in a way that it doesn't
  • 00:09:35
    seem wrong in the first case to turn you
  • 00:09:38
    say and in another way I mean in the
  • 00:09:39
    first situation you're involved directly
  • 00:09:41
    with the situation in the second one
  • 00:09:43
    you're an onlooker as well all right so
  • 00:09:45
    you have the choice of becoming involved
  • 00:09:46
    or Not by pushing the fat let's let's
  • 00:09:48
    forget for the moment about this
  • 00:09:50
    case that's good uh let's imagine a
  • 00:09:54
    different case this time you're a doctor
  • 00:09:56
    in an emergency room and six patients
  • 00:10:00
    come to
  • 00:10:01
    you
  • 00:10:02
    uh they've been in a terrible trolley
  • 00:10:05
    car
  • 00:10:09
    wreck five of them sustained moderate
  • 00:10:12
    injuries one is severely injured you
  • 00:10:14
    could spend all day caring for the one
  • 00:10:16
    severely injured victim but in that time
  • 00:10:20
    the five would die or you could look
  • 00:10:22
    after the five restore them to health
  • 00:10:24
    but during that time the one severely
  • 00:10:26
    injured person would die how many would
  • 00:10:29
    save the
  • 00:10:30
    five now is the doctor how many would
  • 00:10:33
    save the
  • 00:10:35
    one very few people just a handful of
  • 00:10:40
    people same reason I assume one life
  • 00:10:44
    versus
  • 00:10:46
    five now consider another doctor case
  • 00:10:51
    this time you're a transplant surgeon
  • 00:10:54
    and you have five patients each in
  • 00:10:57
    desperate need of an organ transplant in
  • 00:10:59
    order to survive one needs a heart one a
  • 00:11:03
    lung one a kidney one a liver and the
  • 00:11:08
    fifth a
  • 00:11:10
    pancreas and you have no organ donors
  • 00:11:15
    you are about to see them
  • 00:11:18
    die and then it occurs to you that in
  • 00:11:23
    the Next Room there's a healthy guy who
  • 00:11:25
    came in for a checkup
  • 00:11:31
    and
  • 00:11:35
    he's you like
  • 00:11:37
    that and he's he's taking a
  • 00:11:44
    nap you could go in very
  • 00:11:47
    quietly yank out the five organs that
  • 00:11:50
    person would
  • 00:11:51
    die but you could save the
  • 00:11:54
    five how many would do it
  • 00:12:01
    anyone how many put your hands up if you
  • 00:12:04
    would do
  • 00:12:09
    it anyone in the balcony I you would be
  • 00:12:14
    careful don't lean over
  • 00:12:16
    to what uh how many
  • 00:12:20
    wouldn't all right what do you say speak
  • 00:12:23
    up in the balcony you who would yank out
  • 00:12:26
    the organs why I I'd actually like to
  • 00:12:29
    explore a slightly alternate possibility
  • 00:12:31
    of just taking the one of the five who
  • 00:12:33
    needs an organ who dies first using
  • 00:12:36
    therefore healthy organs to save the
  • 00:12:37
    other
  • 00:12:41
    four that's a pretty good
  • 00:12:45
    idea that's a great
  • 00:12:49
    idea except for the fact that you just
  • 00:12:53
    wreck the philosophical
  • 00:12:56
    Point well let's let's step back
  • 00:12:59
    from these stories and these arguments
  • 00:13:02
    to notice a couple of things about the
  • 00:13:05
    way the arguments have begun to
  • 00:13:08
    unfold certain moral principles have
  • 00:13:12
    already begun to
  • 00:13:14
    emerge from the discussions we've had
  • 00:13:18
    and let's consider what those moral
  • 00:13:21
    principles look like the first moral
  • 00:13:24
    principle that emerged in the discussion
  • 00:13:27
    said the right thing to do the moral
  • 00:13:29
    thing to do depends on the consequences
  • 00:13:33
    that will
  • 00:13:34
    result from your
  • 00:13:36
    action at the end of the day better that
  • 00:13:39
    five should live even if one must
  • 00:13:43
    die that's an example of
  • 00:13:47
    consequentialist moral
  • 00:13:50
    reasoning consequentialist moral
  • 00:13:52
    reasoning locates Morality In the
  • 00:13:54
    consequences of an act in the state of
  • 00:13:56
    the world that will result from the
  • 00:13:58
    things you
  • 00:14:00
    do but then we went a little further we
  • 00:14:02
    considered those other cases and people
  • 00:14:05
    weren't so sure
  • 00:14:08
    about consequentialist moral
  • 00:14:11
    reasoning when people hesitated to push
  • 00:14:15
    the fat man over the bridge or to yank
  • 00:14:18
    out the organs of the innocent patient
  • 00:14:21
    people gestured toward
  • 00:14:25
    reasons having to do with the intrinsic
  • 00:14:29
    quality of the act itself consequences
  • 00:14:33
    be what they may people were
  • 00:14:36
    reluctant people thought it was just
  • 00:14:38
    wrong categorically wrong to kill a
  • 00:14:43
    person an innocent person even for the
  • 00:14:46
    sake of saving five lives at least
  • 00:14:49
    people thought that in the second
  • 00:14:52
    version of each story We
  • 00:14:55
    considered so this points to to a second
  • 00:15:01
    categorical
  • 00:15:03
    way of thinking about moral reasoning
  • 00:15:08
    categorical moral reasoning locates
  • 00:15:10
    morality in certain absolute moral
  • 00:15:13
    requirements certain categorical duties
  • 00:15:15
    and rights regardless of the
  • 00:15:18
    consequences we're going to explore in
  • 00:15:21
    the days and weeks to come the contrast
  • 00:15:24
    between consequentialist and categorical
  • 00:15:26
    moral
  • 00:15:27
    principles the the most influential
  • 00:15:30
    example of consequential moral reasoning
  • 00:15:33
    is utilitarianism a Doctrine invented by
  • 00:15:37
    Jeremy benam the 18th century English
  • 00:15:40
    political
  • 00:15:42
    philosopher the most
  • 00:15:45
    important philosopher of categorical
  • 00:15:47
    moral reasoning is the 18th century
  • 00:15:51
    German philosopher Immanuel Kant so we
  • 00:15:55
    will look at those two different modes
  • 00:15:57
    of moral reasoning
  • 00:15:59
    assess them and also consider others if
  • 00:16:03
    you look at the syllabus you'll notice
  • 00:16:04
    that we read a number of great and
  • 00:16:06
    famous books books by
  • 00:16:09
    Aristotle John Lock Emanuel Kant John
  • 00:16:13
    Stewart Mill and
  • 00:16:15
    others you'll notice too from the
  • 00:16:17
    syllabus that we don't only read these
  • 00:16:19
    books we also take up contemporary
  • 00:16:24
    political and legal controversies that
  • 00:16:26
    raise philosophical questions we will
  • 00:16:29
    debate equality and inequality
  • 00:16:32
    affirmative action Free Speech versus
  • 00:16:34
    hate speech same-sex marriage military
  • 00:16:38
    conscription a range of practical
  • 00:16:41
    questions why not just to enliven these
  • 00:16:45
    abstract and distant books but to make
  • 00:16:48
    clear to bring out what's at stake in
  • 00:16:50
    our everyday lives including our
  • 00:16:52
    political
  • 00:16:54
    lives for
  • 00:16:56
    philosophy and so we will read these
  • 00:16:59
    books and we will debate these issues
  • 00:17:02
    and we'll see how each informs and
  • 00:17:05
    illuminates the
  • 00:17:06
    other this may sound appealing enough
  • 00:17:09
    but here I have to issue a
  • 00:17:13
    warning and the warning is
  • 00:17:16
    this to read these
  • 00:17:19
    books in this
  • 00:17:22
    way as an exercise in self- knowledge to
  • 00:17:26
    read them in this way carries certain
  • 00:17:28
    risks
  • 00:17:30
    risks that are both personal and
  • 00:17:33
    political risks that every student of
  • 00:17:36
    political
  • 00:17:37
    philosophy has
  • 00:17:39
    known these risks spring from the fact
  • 00:17:43
    that philosophy teaches us and unsettles
  • 00:17:47
    Us by confronting us with what we
  • 00:17:50
    already
  • 00:17:52
    know there's an
  • 00:17:54
    irony the difficulty of this course
  • 00:17:57
    consists in the fact that it teaches
  • 00:17:59
    what you already
  • 00:18:01
    know it works by taking what we know
  • 00:18:05
    from familiar unquestion
  • 00:18:07
    settings and making it
  • 00:18:11
    strange that's how those examples work
  • 00:18:14
    worked the hypotheticals with which we
  • 00:18:17
    began with their mix of playfulness and
  • 00:18:20
    sobriety it's also how these
  • 00:18:22
    philosophical books work
  • 00:18:24
    philosophy estranges us from the
  • 00:18:28
    familiar
  • 00:18:29
    not by supplying new
  • 00:18:31
    information but by inviting and
  • 00:18:34
    provoking a new way of
  • 00:18:38
    seeing but and here's the
  • 00:18:41
    risk once the familiar turns
  • 00:18:45
    strange it's never quite the same
  • 00:18:48
    again self-knowledge
  • 00:18:51
    is like Lost
  • 00:18:54
    Innocence however unsettling you find it
  • 00:18:58
    it can never be
  • 00:19:00
    unthought or
  • 00:19:04
    unknown what makes this Enterprise
  • 00:19:08
    difficult but also
  • 00:19:11
    riveting is that moral and political
  • 00:19:14
    philosophy is a
  • 00:19:16
    story and you don't know where the story
  • 00:19:19
    will lead but what you do know is that
  • 00:19:22
    the story is about
  • 00:19:25
    you those are the personal risks
  • 00:19:29
    now what of the political
  • 00:19:31
    risks one way of introducing a course
  • 00:19:34
    like this would be to promise you that
  • 00:19:37
    by reading these books and debating
  • 00:19:39
    these issues you will become a better
  • 00:19:41
    more responsible
  • 00:19:43
    citizen you will examine the
  • 00:19:45
    presuppositions of public policy you
  • 00:19:47
    will hone your political judgment you
  • 00:19:49
    will become a more effective participant
  • 00:19:51
    in public
  • 00:19:54
    affairs but this would be a partial and
  • 00:19:56
    misleading promise
  • 00:19:58
    political philosophy for the most part
  • 00:20:00
    hasn't worked that
  • 00:20:02
    way you have to allow for the
  • 00:20:05
    possibility that political philosophy
  • 00:20:08
    may make you a worse
  • 00:20:10
    citizen rather than a better
  • 00:20:12
    one or at least a worse citizen before
  • 00:20:16
    it makes you a better
  • 00:20:19
    one and that's because philosophy is a
  • 00:20:23
    distancing even
  • 00:20:26
    debilitating activity
  • 00:20:28
    and you see this going back to Socrates
  • 00:20:32
    there's a dialogue the gorgus in which
  • 00:20:34
    one of socrates's friends calicles tries
  • 00:20:38
    to talk him out of
  • 00:20:41
    philosophizing calicles tells Socrates
  • 00:20:43
    philosophy is a pretty
  • 00:20:45
    toy if one indulges in it with
  • 00:20:48
    moderation at the right time of life but
  • 00:20:50
    if one pursues it further than one
  • 00:20:52
    should it is absolute ruin take my
  • 00:20:56
    advice Calle says abandon argument learn
  • 00:21:00
    the accomplishments of active life take
  • 00:21:03
    for your models not those people who
  • 00:21:06
    spend their time on these Petty quibbles
  • 00:21:09
    but those who have a good livelihood and
  • 00:21:11
    reputation and many other
  • 00:21:13
    blessings so calicles is really saying
  • 00:21:16
    to philos to
  • 00:21:18
    Socrates quit
  • 00:21:19
    philosophizing get
  • 00:21:21
    real go to business
  • 00:21:26
    school and calicles did have a point he
  • 00:21:30
    had a point because philosophy distances
  • 00:21:34
    us from conventions from established
  • 00:21:36
    assumptions and from settled beliefs
  • 00:21:39
    those are the risks personal and
  • 00:21:41
    political and in the face of these risks
  • 00:21:43
    there is a characteristic evasion the
  • 00:21:46
    name of the evasion is skepticism it's
  • 00:21:48
    the idea let go something like this we
  • 00:21:51
    didn't resolve once and for
  • 00:21:55
    all either the cases or the principles
  • 00:21:58
    we were arguing when we
  • 00:22:01
    began and if Aristotle and lock and Kant
  • 00:22:04
    and Mill haven't solved these questions
  • 00:22:06
    after all of these years who are we to
  • 00:22:10
    think that we here in Sanders Theater
  • 00:22:13
    over the course of of a semester can
  • 00:22:16
    resolve
  • 00:22:17
    them and so maybe it's just a matter
  • 00:22:20
    of each person having his or her own
  • 00:22:23
    principles and there's nothing more to
  • 00:22:25
    be said about it no way of reasoning
  • 00:22:28
    that's the evasion the evasion of
  • 00:22:30
    skepticism to which I would offer the
  • 00:22:32
    following reply it's true these
  • 00:22:36
    questions have been debated for a very
  • 00:22:38
    long time but the very fact that they
  • 00:22:41
    have recurred and
  • 00:22:44
    persisted may
  • 00:22:46
    suggest that though they're impossible
  • 00:22:48
    in one sense they're unavoidable in
  • 00:22:51
    another and the reason they're
  • 00:22:53
    unavoidable the reason they're
  • 00:22:55
    inescapable is that we live some answer
  • 00:22:58
    to these questions every
  • 00:23:01
    day so skepticism just throwing up your
  • 00:23:04
    hands and giving up on moral
  • 00:23:07
    reflection is no
  • 00:23:09
    solution Emanuel Kant described very
  • 00:23:12
    well the problem with skepticism when he
  • 00:23:14
    wrote skepticism is a resting place for
  • 00:23:17
    human reason where it can reflect upon
  • 00:23:19
    its dogmatic wanderings but it is no
  • 00:23:22
    dwelling place for permanent settlement
  • 00:23:25
    simply to acques in skepticism K wrote
  • 00:23:28
    can never suffice to overcome the
  • 00:23:31
    restlessness of
  • 00:23:34
    reason I've tried to suggest through
  • 00:23:36
    these stories and these
  • 00:23:38
    arguments some sense of the risks and
  • 00:23:41
    temptations of the perils and the
  • 00:23:43
    possibilities I would simply conclude by
  • 00:23:46
    saying that the aim of this course is to
  • 00:23:50
    awaken the restlessness of reason and to
  • 00:23:54
    see where it might lead thank you very
  • 00:23:57
    much
  • 00:24:04
    [Applause]
  • 00:24:05
    [Music]
  • 00:24:07
    like in a situation that desperate you
  • 00:24:09
    have to do what you have to do to
  • 00:24:10
    survive um you have to do what you have
  • 00:24:12
    to do you have got to do what you got to
  • 00:24:14
    do pretty much if you've been going 19
  • 00:24:16
    days without any food um you know
  • 00:24:18
    someone just has to take the sacrifice
  • 00:24:20
    someone has to make the sacrifice and
  • 00:24:21
    and people can survive all right that's
  • 00:24:23
    good what's your name Marcus Marcus what
  • 00:24:25
    do you say to Marcus
  • 00:24:28
    h
  • 00:24:31
    [Music]
  • 00:24:39
    [Music]
  • 00:24:57
    [Music]
  • 00:25:07
    [Music]
Tags
  • morality
  • trolley problem
  • consequentialism
  • categorical reasoning
  • philosophy
  • ethics
  • moral dilemmas
  • Immanuel Kant
  • Jeremy Bentham
  • political philosophy