"We started out last time with some stories with some moral dilemmas about trolley cars and about doctors and healthy patients vulnerable to being victims of organ transplantation we noticed two things about the arguments we had one had to do with the way we were arguing" "it began with our judgments in particular cases we tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind our judgments and then confronted with a new case we found ourselves re-examining those principles revising each in the light of the other" "and we noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring into alignment our judgments about particular cases and the principles we would endorse on reflection we also noticed something about the substance of the arguments that emerged from the discussion." "We noticed that sometimes we were tempted to locate the morality of an act in the consequences in the results, in the state of the world that it brought about." "We called is consequentialist moral reason." "But we also noticed that in some cases we weren't swayed only by the results sometimes, many of us felt, that not just consequences but also the intrinsic quality or character 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." "Today and in the next few days we will begin to examine one of the most influential versions of consequentialist moral theory and that's the philosophy of utilitarianism." "Jeremy Bentham, the eighteenth century" "English political philosopher gave first 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 it's 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 we 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 are thinking of what to do in our own lives or whether as legislators or citizens we are thinking about what the law should be," "the right thing to do individually or collectively is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes 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, a real-life story the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stephens." "This was a nineteenth-century British law case that's famous and much debated in law schools." "Here's what happened in the case" "I'll summarize the story and then I want to hear how you would rule imagining that you are the jury." "A newspaper account of the time described the background:" "A sadder story of disaster at sea was never told than that of the survivors of the yacht" "Mignonette." "The ship foundered in the south Atlantic thirteen hundred miles from the cape there were four in the crew," "Dudley was the captain" "Stephens was the first mate" "Brooks was a sailor, all men of excellent character, or so the newspaper account tells us." "The fourth crew member was the cabin boy," "Richard Parker seventeen years old." "He was an orphan he had no family and he was on his first long voyage at sea." "He went, the news account tells us, rather against the advice of his friends." "He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition thinking the journey would make a man of him." "Sadly it was not to be, the facts of the case were not in dispute, a wave hit the ship and the Mignonette went down." "The four crew members escaped to a lifeboat the only food they had were two cans of preserved turnips no fresh water for the first three days they ate nothing on the fourth day that opened one of the cans of turnips" "and ate it." "The next day they caught a turtle together with the other can of turnips the turtle enabled them to subsist for the next few days and then for eight days they had nothing no food no water." "Imagine yourself in a situation like that what would you do?" "Here's what they did by now the cabin boy Parker is lying at the bottom of the lifeboat in a corner because he had drunk sea water against the advice of the others and he had become ill and he appeared to be dying" "so on the nineteenth day Dudley, the captain, suggested that they should all have a lottery." "That they should all draw lots to see who would die to save the rest." "Brooks refused he didn't like the lottery idea we don't know whether this was because he didn't want to take that chance or because he believed in categorical moral principles but in any case no lots were drawn." "The next day there was still no ship in sight so a Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze and he motioned to Stephens that the boy Parker had better be killed." "Dudley offered a prayer he told a the boy his time had come and he killed him with a pen knife stabbing him in the jugular vein." "Brooks emerged from his conscientious objection to share in the gruesome bounty." "For four days the three of them fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy." "True story." "And then they were rescued." "Dudley describes their rescue in his diary with staggering euphemism, quote:" ""on the twenty fourth day as we were having our breakfast a ship appeared at last."" "The three survivors were picked up by a German ship." "They were taken back to Falmouth in England where they were arrested and tried" "Brooks turned state's witness" "Dudley and Stephens went to trial." "They didn't dispute the facts they claimed they had acted out of necessity that was their defense they argued in effect better that one should die so that three could survive the prosecutor wasn't swayed by that argument he said murder is murder" "and so the case went to trial." "Now imagine you are the jury and just to simplify the discussion put aside the question of law, and let's assume that you as the jury are charged with deciding whether what they did was morally permissible or not." "How many would vote not guilty, that what they did was morally permissible?" "And how many would vote guilty what they did was morally wrong?" "A pretty sizable majority." "Now let's see what people's reasons are, and let me begin with those who are in the minority." "Let's hear first from the defense of Dudley and Stephens." "Why would you morally exonerate them?" "What are your reasons?" "I think it's I think it is morally reprehensible but I think that there's a distinction between what's morally reprehensible what makes someone legally accountable in other words the night as the judge said what's always moral isn't necessarily" "against the law and while I don't think that necessity justifies theft or murder any illegal act, at some point your degree of necessity does in fact exonerate you form any guilt. ok." "other defenders, other voices for the defense?" "Moral justifications for what they did?" "yes, thank you I just feel like in a situation that desperate you have to do what you have to do to survive." "You have to do what you have to do ya, you gotta do what you gotta do, pretty much." "If you've been going nineteen days without any food you know someone just has to take the sacrifice has to make sacrifices and people can survive and furthermore from that let's say they survived and then they become productive members of society who go home and then start like" "a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that, I mean they benefit everybody in the end so" "I mean I don't know what they did afterwards, I mean they might have gone on and killed more people but whatever." "what?" "what if they were going home and turned out to be assassins?" "What if they were going home and turned out to be assassins?" "You would want to know who they assassinated." "That's true too, that's fair" "I would wanna know who they assassinated." "alright that's good, what's your name?" "Marcus." "We've heard a defense a couple voices for the defense now we need to hear from the prosecution most people think what they did was wrong, why?" "One of the first things that I was thinking was, oh well if they haven't been eating for a really long time, maybe then they're mentally affected that could be used for the defense, a possible argument that oh," "that they weren't in a proper state of mind, they were making decisions that they otherwise wouldn't be making, and if that's an appealing argument that you have to be in an altered mindset to do something like that it suggests that" "people who find that argument convincing do you think that they're acting immorally." "But I want to know what you think you're defending you k 781 00:37:41,249 -- 00:37:45,549 you voted to convict right?" "yeah I don't think that they acted in morally" "appropriate way." "And why not?" "What do you say, Here's Marcus he just defended them, he said, you heard what he said, yes I did yes that you've got to do what you've got to do in a case like that." "What do you say to Marcus?" "They didn't, that there is no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea of fate or the other people's lives into their own hands that we don't have that kind of power." "Good, okay thanks you, and what's your name?" "Britt?" "okay." "who else?" "What do you say?" "Stand up" "I'm wondering if Dudley and Stephens had asked for Richard Parker's consent in, you know, dying, if that would would that exonerate them from an act of murder, and if so is that still morally justifiable?" "That's interesting, alright consent, now hang on, what's your name?" "Kathleen." "Kathleen says suppose so what would that scenario look like?" "so in the story" "Dudley is there, pen knife in hand, but instead of the prayer or before the prayer, he says, Parker, would you mind we're desperately hungry, as Marcus empathizes with we're desperately hungry you're not going to last long anyhow," "you can be a martyr, would you be a martyr how about it Parker?" "Then, then then what do you think, would be morally justified then?" "Suppose" "Parker in his semi-stupor says okay" "I don't think it'll be morally justifiable but I'm wondering." "Even then, even then it wouldn't be?" "No" "You don't think that even with consent it would be morally justified." "Are there people who think who want to take up Kathleen's consent idea and who think that that would make it morally justified?" "Raise your hand if it would if you think it would." "That's very interesting" "Why would consent make a moral difference?" "Why would it?" "Well I just think that if he was making his own original idea and it was his idea to start with then that would be the only situation in which I would see it being appropriate in anyway because that way you couldn't make the argument that" "he was pressured you know it's three to one or whatever the ratio was, and I think that if he was making a decision to give his life then he took on the agency to sacrifice himself which some people might see as admirable and other people" "might disagree with that decision." "So if he came up with the idea that's the only kind of consent we could have confidence in morally, then it would be okay otherwise it would be kind of coerced consent under the circumstances you think." "Is there anyone who thinks that the even the consent of Parker would not justify their killing him?" "Who thinks that?" "Yes, tell us why, stand up" "I think that Parker would be killed with the hope that the other crew members would be rescued so there's no definite reason that he should be killed because you don't know when they're going to get rescued so if you kill him you're killing him in vain" "do you keep killing a crew member until you're rescued and then you're left with no one?" "because someone's going to die eventually?" "Well the moral logic of the situation seems to be that." "That they would keep on picking off the weakest maybe, one by one, until they were rescued and in this case luckily when three at least were still alive." "Now if if Parker did give his consent would it be all right do you think or not?" "No, it still wouldn't be right." "Tell us why wouldn't be all right." "First of all, cannibalism, I believe is morally incorrect so you shouldn't be eating a human anyway." "So cannibalism is morally objectionable outside so then even in the scenario of waiting until someone died still it would be objectionable." "Yes, to me personally" "I feel like of it all depends on one's personal morals, like we can't just, like this is just my opinion of course other people are going to disagree." "Well let's see, let's hear what their disagreements are and then we'll see if they have reasons that can persuade you or not." "Let's try that" "Let's now is there someone who can explain, those of you who are tempted by consent can you explain why consent makes such a moral difference, what about the lottery idea does that count as consent." "Remember at the beginning" "Dudley proposed a lottery suppose that they had agreed to a lottery then how many would then say it was all right." "Say there was a lottery, cabin boy lost, and the rest of the story unfolded." "How many people would say it's morally permissible?" "So the numbers are rising if we add a lottery, let's hear from one of you for whom the lottery would make a moral difference why would it?" "I think the essential element, in my mind that makes it a crime is the idea that they decided at some point that their lives were more important than his, and that" "I mean that's kind of the basis for really any crime right?" "It's like my needs, my desire is a more important than yours and mine take precedent and if they had done a lottery were everyone consented that someone should die and it's sort of like they're all sacrificing themselves," "to save the rest," "Then it would be all right?" "A little grotesque but," "But morally permissible?" "Yes." "what's your name?" "Matt." "so, Matt for you what bothers you is not the cannibalism, but the lack of due process." "I guess you could say that" "And can someone who agrees with Matt say a little bit more about why a lottery would make it, in your view, morally permissible." "The way I understood it originally was that that was the whole issue is that the cabin boy was never consulted about whether or not it something was going to happen to him even though with the original lottery whether or not he would be a part of that it was just decided" "that he was the one that was going to die." "Yes that's what happened in the actual case but if there were a lottery and they all agreed to the procedure you think that would be okay?" "Right, because everyone knows that there's gonna be a death whereas you know the cabin boy didn't know that this discussion was even happening there was no you know forewarning for him to know that hey, I may be the one that's dying." "Okay, now suppose the everyone agrees to the lottery they have the lottery the cabin boy loses any changes his mind." "You've already decided, it's like a verbal contract, you can't go back on that." "You've decided the decision was made you know if you know you're dying for the reason for at others to live, you would, you know if the someone else had died you know that you would consume them, so" "But then he could say I know, but I lost." "I just think that that's the whole moral issue is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy and that that's what makes it the most horrible is that he had no idea what was even going on, that if he had known what was going on" "it would be a bit more understandable." "Alright, good, now I want to hear so there's some who think it's morally permissible but only about twenty percent, led by Marcus, then there are some who say the real problem here is the lack of consent" "whether the lack of consent to a lottery to a fair procedure or" "Kathleen's idea, lack of consent at the moment of death and if we add consent then more people are willing to consider the sacrifice morally justified." "I want to hear now finally from those of you who think even with consent even with a lottery even with a final murmur of consent from Parker at the very last moment it would still be wrong and why would it be wrong" "that's what I want to hear." "well the whole time" "I've been leaning towards the categorical moral reasoning and I think that there's a possibility I'd be okay with the idea of the lottery and then loser taking into their own hands to kill themselves so there wouldn't be an act of murder but I still think that" "even that way it's coerced and also I don't think that there's any remorse like in" "Dudley's diary we're getting our breakfast it seems as though he's just sort of like, oh, you know that whole idea of not valuing someone else's life so that makes me feel like I have to take the categorical stance." "You want to throw the book at him." "when he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong." "Right." "Alright, good so are there any other defenders who who say it's just categorically wrong, with or without consent, yes stand up." "Why?" "I think undoubtedly the way our society is shaped, murder is murder murder is murder and every way our society looks down at it in the same light and I don't think it's any different in any case." "Good now let me ask you a question, there were three lives at stake versus one, the one, that the cabin boy, he had no family he had no dependents, these other three had families back home in England they had dependents" "they had wives and children think back to Bentham," "Bentham says we have to consider the welfare, the utility, the happiness of everybody." "We have to add it all up so it's not just numbers three against one it's also all of those people at home in fact the London newspaper at the time and popular opinion sympathized with them" "Dudley in Stephens and the paper said if they weren't motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones at home and dependents, surely they wouldn't have done this." "Yeah, and how is that any different from people on the corner trying to having the same desire to feed their family, I don't think it's any different." "I think in any case if I'm murdering you to advance my status, that's murder and I think that we should look at all of that in the same light." "Instead of criminalizing certain activities and making certain things seem more violent and savage when in that same case it's all the same act and mentality that goes into the murder, a necessity to feed their families." "Suppose there weren't three, supposed there were thirty, three hundred, one life to save three hundred or in more time, three thousand or suppose the stakes were even bigger." "Suppose the stakes were even bigger" "I think it's still the same deal." "Do you think Bentham was wrong to say the right thing to do is to add up the collected happiness, you think he's wrong about that?" "I don't think he is wrong, but I think murder is murder in any case." "Well then Bentham has to be wrong if you're right he's wrong. okay then he's wrong." "Alright thank you, well done." "Alright, let's step back from this discussion and notice how many objections have we heard to what they did." "we heard some defenses of what they did the defense has had to do with necessity the dire circumstance and, implicitly at least, the idea that numbers matter and not only numbers matter but the wider effects matter their families back home, their dependents" "Parker was an orphan, no one would miss him." "so if you add up if you tried to calculate the balance of happiness and suffering you might have a case for saying what they did was the right thing then we heard at least three different types of objections," "we heard an objection that's said what they did was categorically wrong, right here at the end categorically wrong." "Murder is murder it's always wrong even if it increases the overall happiness of society the categorical objection." "But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong." "Is it because even cabin boys have certain fundamental rights?" "And if that's the reason where do those rights come from if not from some idea of the larger welfare or utility or happiness?" "Question number one." "Others said a lottery would make a difference a fair procedure," "Matt said." "And some people were swayed by that." "That's not a categorical objection exactly it's saying everybody has to be counted as an equal even though, at the end of the day one can be sacrificed for the general welfare." "That leaves us with another question to investigate," "Why does agreement to certain procedure, even a fair procedure, justify whatever result flows from the operation of that procedure?" "Question number two." "and question number three the basic idea of consent." "Kathleen got us on to this." "If the cabin boy had agreed himself and not under duress as was added then it would be all right to take his life to save the rest." "Even more people signed on to that idea but that raises a third philosophical question what is the moral work that consent does?" "Why does an act of consent make such a moral difference that an act that would be wrong, taking a life, without consent is morally permissible with consent?" "To investigate those three questions we're going to have to read some philosophers and starting next time we're going to read" "Bentham, and John Stuart Mill, utilitarian philosophers."