Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

[Michelle420]

PART ONE: 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? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM

Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."

[ame=http://youtu.be/kBdfcR-8hEY]Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER" - YouTube[/ame]

There is a series of these lectures in case anyone is interested

 

[Michelle420]

PART ONE: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE

Today, companies and governments often use Jeremy Benthams utilitarian logic under the name of cost-benefit analysis. Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Should we always give more weight to the happiness of a majority, even if the majority is cruel or ignoble? Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?

PART TWO: HOW TO MEASURE PLEASURE

Sandel introduces J.S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who attempts to defend utilitarianism against the objections raised by critics of the doctrine. Mill argues that seeking the greatest good for the greatest number is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mills idea is that the higher pleasure is always the pleasure preferred by a well-informed majority. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeares Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons. Students debate which experience provides the higher pleasure, and whether Mills defense of utilitarianism is successful.

[ame=http://youtu.be/0O2Rq4HJBxw]Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 02: "PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Michelle420]

ART ONE: FREE TO CHOOSE

Sandel introduces the libertarian conception of individual rights, according to which only a minimal state is justified. Libertarians argue that government shouldnt have the power to enact laws that 1) protect people from themselves, such as seat belt laws, 2) impose some peoples moral values on society as a whole, or 3) redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Sandel explains the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation is akin to forced labor with references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan.

PART TWO: WHO OWNS ME?

Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick makes the case that taxing the wealthy—to pay for housing, health care, and education for the poor—is a form of coercion. Students first discuss the arguments behind redistributive taxation. Dont most poor people need the social services they receive in order to survive? If you live in a society that has a system of progressive taxation, arent you obligated to pay your taxes? Dont many rich people often acquire their wealth through sheer luck or family fortune? A group of students dubbed Team Libertarian volunteers to defend the libertarian philosophy against these objections.

[ame=http://youtu.be/Qw4l1w0rkjs]Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 03: "FREE TO CHOOSE" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[imans]

utilitarian philosophy is evil by definition since it is opposed to philosophy truth
what use smthg for being smthg else is clearly the evil will way, since meaning being positively free by destroyin everything else, being fundamentally opposed to true existence which is self being by recognizin else being real

utilitarian philosophy is opposed to philosophy truth, when philosophy is to absolute objective knowledge for freedom rights over and out of it where philosophy is always exclusively through individual existence, so never meanin the use of absolute or reality possible

that is how the question is clearly evil reality, u r not saving anyone life when it is not ur life
when true life do not exist, the immortal condition reality of beings then truth reference is oneself only

another way to prove the evil of that stance,

doing nothing is in truth the right thing always, bc when u r wether a will or a conscious acceptin to render urself as nothing, so doing being less in truth is the right that truth mean free existence for

while here u the equation clearly stipulate doing nothing as the inferior choice, revealin not knowin that nothing is what everyone should do first before meanin any relative move right out of nothing true

it is clear how this question dont recognize objective reality as absolute fact, and when philosophy is through the positive infinite ends out of absolutes abstractions being the exclusive existing fact, then again it proves the means being smthg else so certainly lies are meant consciously so here again it proves evil since opposite to morality point it claims making

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Q: 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? - moral dilemma or fart in the wind?

Best practice:

1. Get rid of filigree in the statement. Get it to brass tacks...

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?

2. No one "has to" choose. This is the "out". For me it would be over. Probably take a nap.
​

 

[imans]

and yeaa it is clear evil since it denies reality, how someone who is not a real killer would kill for a purpose??? i mean even if the guy is brainwashed to say so how is it gonna happen to get stronger face then the killer and for strangers as free positive power source to do so

 

[Michelle420]

Q: 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? - moral dilemma or fart in the wind?

Best practice:

1. Get rid of filigree in the statement. Get it to brass tacks...

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?

2. No one "has to" choose. This is the "out". For me it would be over. Probably take a nap.
​

Did you email the professor and correct him

 

[Michelle420]

and yeaa it is clear evil since it denies reality, how someone who is not a real killer would kill for a purpose??? i mean even if the guy is brainwashed to say so how is it gonna happen to get stronger face then the killer and for strangers as free positive power source to do so

Did you watch any of the lectures>?

 

[emilynghiem]

Answering as someone who has never BEEN in such a situation,
which of course is the only way to know what you'd really do:

0. Questions: can you eat parts of people and not have to kill the person?
can you wait for someone to die of natural causes?

In general, I would seek to respect the beliefs of all the people in the group.

1. If one person agreed to be sacrificed, or if all the people agreed to draw straws, etc. where people at least had time to be prepare mentally and not be rushed to do things against their nature, then if this were necessary, I might be OK with that under if everyone were at peace. I believe if it is really God's will, then you can come to peace with it in advance.

2. If anyone is going to suffer and not be OK with that, where the group decides it is better to die together than kill one of them against their will, I'd respect that also. I am guessing that since I tend toward this way of thinking, where I'd rather die before i have to do something weird or sick in order to live, then I might end up being the sacrifice bunt.

3. In the case of St. Maximilian, before he was sainted of course, he offered to trade places with a prisoner who was chosen for execution; because the other man had a family. So if someone agrees to that, I believe that would minimalize the suffering.

Overall, I would not want to put people in a position where they have to falsely justify something sick in there minds in order to explain the choices that were made. I worry that makes people mentally ill to force them into denial and rationalization. So if there is any way to avoid that, I would. For life to be worth living, the quality of life is important, too and I would not want to make people crazy, having to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.So I would prefer the decision be made by consent where people agree to any sacrifice.

If they don't agree to have someone killed, can the group wait until the first person dies of natural causes or asks to be put to death? Can they all agree to take turns sacrificing parts of their bodies that can be eaten without killing anyone?

PART ONE: 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? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM

Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."

[ame=http://youtu.be/kBdfcR-8hEY]Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER" - YouTube[/ame]

There is a series of these lectures in case anyone is interested

Don't forget what is spiritually good for people counts also, not just what saves physical lives.

 

[imans]

Don't forget what is spiritually good for people counts also, not just what saves physical lives.

savin a second is sellin the illusion of being truly living, what matter the most is the truth as the reason of anything while in truth u can die any second by accident and urself life is mortal condition so anyone will die for sure

that is why morality is the true value, true value is not in savin another from threatenin him to abuse his weak condition of being

morality is what realize who mean to support the truth, it could b moral to threaten the offender too by showin him that he is also part of same condition
but if there is no possible way to mean so, morality could b to act being in same situation or if that also is not allowed by the present reactions in feelings to that will,
then morality could b the truth of self means being rights subjectively through supportin ownself to not die

but as u said clearly, we live in such evil conditions that we must keep improvising our present reactions to stay objective, but it is nothing to talk about bc we are negatively being as if we exist subjectively from our wills to b and/or we exist objectively from illusions of life to not face negative truth powers over all

but from what u said it is clear too that u believe in god while i dont, superior objective intelligence entities over existence are responsable directly of our conscious true negative realities

 

[imans]

Did you watch any of the lectures>?

i just read what u sumd of it to mean smthg else related to the topic without meanin that guy nor anyone, just an idea about morality and right philosophy

 

[emilynghiem]

Don't forget what is spiritually good for people counts also, not just what saves physical lives.

savin a second is sellin the illusion of being truly living, what matter the most is the truth as the reason of anything while in truth u can die any second by accident and urself life is mortal condition so anyone will die for sure

that is why morality is the true value, true value is not in savin another from threatenin him to abuse his weak condition of being

morality is what realize who mean to support the truth, it could b moral to threaten the offender too by showin him that he is also part of same condition
but if there is no possible way to mean so, morality could b to act being in same situation or if that also is not allowed by the present reactions in feelings to that will,
then morality could b the truth of self means being rights subjectively through supportin ownself to not die

but as u said clearly, we live in such evil conditions that we must keep improvising our present reactions to stay objective, but it is nothing to talk about bc we are negatively being as if we exist subjectively from our wills to b and/or we exist objectively from illusions of life to not face negative truth powers over all

but from what u said it is clear too that u believe in god while i dont, superior objective intelligence entities over existence are responsable directly of our conscious true negative realities

Hi Iman if you believe in the power of truth, that comes from the same universal source that people call God. You don't have to believe in any personified God to understand we are talking about the same universal source of truth, love and life in the world.

If you believe in conscience and making right decisions by free will and reason
that is the connection to truth that people call Christ. You do not need to personifying this as Jesus for the spirit of Truth and Justice to live in your heart and guide your conscience.
It is the same thing.

the spirit of Justice with Mercy that Jesus represents governs all humanity
whether we are secular gentiles who follow natural laws on which our state is built
or we are neighbors under scriptural laws that govern the church

both are in harmony where we agree in Truth so this is what it
means for us to agree by conscience as neighbors in Christ.

both secular nontheists and religious believers are
equally joined in harmony and truth by the same spirit where we agree in peace and justice.

htese are universal values, for all human beings, regardless of our background or calling.
Justice by any other name is still justice
truth by any other name
Love by any other name. it is the same as God and Jesus, no matter how we express
our love for truth and justice and peace.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

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?

I can imagine a situation in which I would spare the life of the one person and let the five others die.

I can also imagine a situation where I would kill the one person in order to save the five.

Because, obviously, it depends on WHO these people are.

But to kill someone to save others, or in self-defense...not a problem. I'd do it in a heart beat.

And to spare one precious person even though it means five people who mean nothing to me will die...yes, I could see that happening.

All of this depends on the specific circumstances of the situation. And I don't need some professor to tell me what is right or wrong, I can figure it out myself.

 

[imans]

Hi Iman if you believe in the power of truth, that comes from the same universal source that people call God. You don't have to believe in any personified God to understand we are talking about the same universal source of truth, love and life in the world.

If you believe in conscience and making right decisions by free will and reason
that is the connection to truth that people call Christ. You do not need to personifying this as Jesus for the spirit of Truth and Justice to live in your heart and guide your conscience.
It is the same thing.

the spirit of Justice with Mercy that Jesus represents governs all humanity
whether we are secular gentiles who follow natural laws on which our state is built
or we are neighbors under scriptural laws that govern the church

both are in harmony where we agree in Truth so this is what it
means for us to agree by conscience as neighbors in Christ.

both secular nontheists and religious believers are
equally joined in harmony and truth by the same spirit where we agree in peace and justice.

htese are universal values, for all human beings, regardless of our background or calling.
Justice by any other name is still justice
truth by any other name
Love by any other name. it is the same as God and Jesus, no matter how we express
our love for truth and justice and peace.

NO miss truth wont come from any god nor powerful source put ur dreams to ur ass alone

so u dare mean to fool me in front of everybody else consciously, good, truth points are unfortunately for u more obvious expeditions then ur cheapest evil ways

truth exist, so it is noone business, i guess anytime would b soon that would force u to shut down from pretendin knowin anything about truth

disgusting how u buy so many living wills just to sell being one truth by force,

anyway truth is opposite to one and all, when truth that u enjoy abusing is actually what is always first or last or in conception both so never any reality nor related to

put ur universal machin in ur ass too, n especially ur dirty jesus and his god, freaks that dare call steppin on others heads, being walkin, u go to hell all of u at the end there cant b any left but what exist really free

i just hope to know for sure that u r gonna suffer the bad u r extremely badly to urself alone, ur living insolence is too obvious that it kills everything else around

 

[imans]

I can imagine a situation in which I would spare the life of the one person and let the five others die.

I can also imagine a situation where I would kill the one person in order to save the five.

Because, obviously, it depends on WHO these people are.

But to kill someone to save others, or in self-defense...not a problem. I'd do it in a heart beat.

And to spare one precious person even though it means five people who mean nothing to me will die...yes, I could see that happening.

All of this depends on the specific circumstances of the situation. And I don't need some professor to tell me what is right or wrong, I can figure it out myself.

exactly as if sellin a crap question to a mass image is a reason to play being the president

 

[emilynghiem]

Scholars find cannibalism at Jamestown settlement

Here, Drifter, this is for you.
I always thought history was kind of yucky to study,
but I meant the hodgepodge of dates and events
all thrown together. This article is really yucky!
Bleaaahhh

But hey, if the civilized colonists of Jamestown
resorted to cannibalism to survive, then maybe
I would do the same thing in that situation.

I would still tend to think I'd more likely be the person
agreeing to be killed and chopped up, before
I'd agree to survive off someone else. Bleahhh!

Braaiinns, Braiinss, Bleahhh!!!