Name:____________________
Michael Sandel’s course: Justice
Harvard University
To find this lecture, go to http://www.justiceharvard.org/ and then click on Episode
Guide. On the right side, find Episode 1 (The Moral Side of Murder / The Case for Cannibalism).
Part 1 - 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? That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on
moral reasoning.
Part 2 - The Case for Cannibalism: Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher,
Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of
four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest
amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive.
Notes from Ms. Goldberg on Michael Sandel’s Justice lectures:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
The Trolley Story—5 workers on the main track vs. 1 worker on the side
track. What is the right thing to do?
The Trolley Story v2—you’re an onlooker. 1 man on the bridge. What would
you do? What became of the principle? What’s the difference between these
scenarios?
Emergency Room Doctor—6 patients; 5 with moderate injuries, 1 severely
injured.
Emergency Room Doctor v2—5 patients need organ transplants, 1 healthy
person.
Moral Principles:
A. Consequentialist moral reasoning – definition: locates morality in the
consequences of an act, in the state of the world that will result from what
you do. (e.g. kill one to save many; “the ends justify the means,” Jeremy
Bentham, England)
B. Categorical moral reasoning- definition: locates morality in certain duties
and rights (e.g. the act of killing the one is intrinsically wrong; Immanuel
Kant, Germany)
What is philosophy? It estranges us from the familiar but by inviting and
provoking a new way of thinking. The risk? Once the familiar turns strange,
it’s never quite the same again.
Part 2 (24:38)
VII.
Summary of the previous class.
VIII.
Consequentialist moral reasoning vs. Categorical moral reasoning.
“Sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act in the
consequences, in the results, in the state of the world that would result (we call
this consequentialist moral reasoning); we also noticed, in some cases, we
weren’t swayed only by the result. Sometimes, many of us felt, that not just
consequences but also the intrinsic quality of the act matters morally. Some
people argued that there are certain things that are just categorically wrong
even if they bring about a good result. Even if they save five people at the cost
of one life. So we contrasted consequentialist moral principles with
categorical ones.”
IX.
The philosophy of utilitarianism: “Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English
political philosopher gave us the first clear, systematic expression to the
utilitarian moral theory. And Bentham’s idea, his essential idea, is a very
simple one, with a lot of morally intuitive appeal. Bentham’s idea is the
following: The right thing to do, the just thing to do, is to maximize utility.
What did he mean by utility? He meant, by utility, the balance of pleasure
over pain, happiness over suffering. Here’s how he arrived at the principle of
maximizing utility. He started out by observing that all of us, all human
beings, are governed by two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure. We human
beings like pleasure and dislike pain. And so we should base morality,
whether we’re thinking about what to do in our lives, or whether as legislators
or citizens we’re thinking about what the laws should be, the right thing to do
individually or collectively is to maximize, act in a way that maximized the
overall level of happiness. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes summed up
with the slogan, “the greatest good for the greatest number.” With this basic
principle of utility on hand, let’s begin to test it and to examine it by turning to
another case, another story. But this time, not a hypothetical story, but a real
life story: the case of The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens. This was a 19th
century law case that’s famous and much debated in law schools.”
X.
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens: How would you rule? The case is
summarized (29:30-34:00). Then, the students share their reactions.
Name: _________________________
Professor Michael Sandel
Harvard University
Justice
Part 1 - The Moral Side of Murder:
1. The Trolley Story- Question:
Initial Answer:
Reasoning:
2. The Trolley Story v2- Question:
Initial Answer:
Reasoning:
3. Emergency Room Doctor- Question:
Initial Answer:
Reasoning:
4. Emergency Room Doctor v2- Question:
Initial Answer:
Definitions:
Consequentialist moral reasoning -
Categorical moral reasoning -
Reasoning: