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]
