USMB::: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

[Dante]

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

Episode 1: three questions?

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

2) Does a fair procedure justify any result?

3) What is the moral work of consent?

 

[lizzie]

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

It depends.

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

It depends on which philosophical school of thought one subscribes to. In reality, no we don't have certain fundamental rights, except the right to our own thoughts and beliefs. By consent and majority belief, yes we do have fundamental rights to life, liberty, and personal property.

2) Does a fair procedure justify any result?

From my personal stance of Deontoligical ethics, the answer would most likely be yes. I adhere to the thought that the end does not justify the means.

 

[Dante]

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

It depends.

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

It depends on which philosophical school of thought one subscribes to. In reality, no we don't have certain fundamental rights, except the right to our own thoughts and beliefs. By consent and majority belief, yes we do have fundamental rights to life, liberty, and personal property.

2) Does a fair procedure justify any result?

From my personal stance of Deontoligical ethics, the answer would most likely be yes. I adhere to the thought that the end does not justify the means.

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

1) It depends? I agree, but I think 'it depends' is too vague an answer. Depending on what, when and where (and more) covers a lot of territory.

This is actually a set of questions from the Series: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Series: Justice What's The Right Thing To Do?

But just answering the questions in the way that you have is a breath of fresh air around here. You've also injected a term I have never seen used on here before: Deontological ethics.

The term "deontological" was first used in this way in 1930, in C. D. Broad's book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.

thank you

dD

 

[lizzie]

[1) It depends? I agree, but I think 'it depends' is too vague an answer. Depending on what, when and where (and more) covers a lot of territory.

This is actually a set of questions from the Series: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Series: Justice What's The Right Thing To Do?

But just answering the questions in the way that you have is a breath of fresh air around here. You've also injected a term I have never seen used on here before: Deontological ethics.

The term "deontological" was first used in this way in 1930, in C. D. Broad's book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.

thank you

dD

You're welcome. I was thinking maybe you had been formulating some opinions on the differing schools of ethical thought. Thanks for the link. I'll read it. Maybe it will give me a little more perspective on just what you're asking.

 

[lizzie]

Oops, nevermind reading the link- it's a link to another thread.

The question of the right thing to do must take into account a basis of equal treatment for all, not special treatment for some, and it must be blind to differences, positive or negative relative to the offended. Give me a scenario, and I will tell you what I see as the right thing to do, but "right" is such a broad term that it is virtually impossible to make a judgement without a circumstance.

 

[Dante]

Oops, nevermind reading the link- it's a link to another thread.

The question of the right thing to do must take into account a basis of equal treatment for all, not special treatment for some, and it must be blind to differences, positive or negative relative to the offended. Give me a scenario, and I will tell you what I see as the right thing to do, but "right" is such a broad term that it is virtually impossible to make a judgement without a circumstance.

2 threads.

one for the videos themselves and another for the discussion. this way the video thread will not be flooded with posts that will get the videos lost.

This thread is the 1st thread.

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

Fix: The Poverty of Political Debate

How about viewing something like this...

[youtube]rTAB5FVkLfE[/youtube]


..and then debate or better, discuss, what has transpired.

Or do you want a cheap online imitation of the cable fest food fights that pass as political debate?

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"

[youtube]kBdfcR-8hEY&NR[/youtube]

three questions?

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

2) Does a fair procedure justify any result?

3) What is the moral work of consent?

---

2nd thread.......the discussion thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/128768-usmb-justice-whats-the-right-thing-to-do.html#post2613770

you'll need video.

I should post a link to discussions of some sort without making it look like USMB is being made to look at worthwhile competition.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes, we have fundamental rights. Those are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'd answer the rest of your questions but quite honestly, I have no clue what you are talking about in them.

 

[Dante]

Part 1

Yes, we have fundamental rights. Those are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I'd answer the rest of your questions but quite honestly, I have no clue what you are talking about in them.

So as to not make people need to watch the video, I will supply a transcript of a type.

This is a course about justice, and we begin with a story.

Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car, and your trolley car is hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour, and at the end of the track you notice five workers working on the track.

You try to stop but you can't, your brakes don't work. You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five workers they will all die..(let's assume you know that for sure.), and so you feel helpless, until you notice that there is off to the right a sidetrack, and at the end of that track there's one worker working on the track. Your steering wheel works, so you can turn the troley car if you want to, onto the sidetrack, killing the one, but sparing the five.

Here is our first set of questions concerning what you think is the right thing to do, what you would do.

1) You would turn the trolley car onto the sidetrack.

If you would turn onto the sidetrack, why would you? What are your reasons?

2) You would go straight ahead.

If would you go straight ahead, why would you? What are your reasons?

---


​

 

[Dante]

Part 2

The principle: Better to kill the one so the five could live.

Consider another scenario where this time you're not the driver of the trolley car you're an onlooker.

You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track. Down the track comes a trolley car. At the end of the track are five workers, the brakes don't work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them, and now you're not the driver, you really feel helpless. Until you notice standing next to you, leaning over the bridge is a very fat man, and you could give him a shove. He would fall over the bridge, onto the track, right in the way of the trolley car. He would die, but he would spare the five.

Would you push the fat man? Why?

Would you not push the fat man? Why?

If you would not push the fat man, what happened to the principle: Better to kill the one so the five could live?

What became of the principle in the second case?

How do you explain the difference between the two?

 

[Dante]

In the first case, I would turn the trolley onto the sidetrack, because I assume my focus would initially have been on the five people in front of me, and that the second option with the lone person on the sidetrack, would be the immediate and obvious choice resulting in a sacrifice. My "Sophie's Choice."

In the second case, the one where I'm an observer, I would not push the fat man.

I don't know that in the first case, the principle of sacrificing the one for the many held true for me. My reasoning in the first case would be less of an emotional response, or one based on logic and philosophy, than it would be one based on an instinctive impulse, with very little thinking of moral and ethical choices.

But for the purposes of argument, I would say the principle of sacrificing the one for the many suffices.

In my second decision of whether or not to push the fat man, I would not push the fat man. The principle could still stand, because I do not have immediate and technical control of the situation. I am merely an observer. I have no right to sacrifice another for the many where I am not involved except as an observer.

Of course if the choice was to scream out, to yell, to throw things, to fire a shot to somehow warn everyone involved, I would have done that, but that option wasn't given.

 

[lizzie]

[you'll need video.

I should post a link to discussions of some sort without making it look like USMB is being made to look at worthwhile competition.

Oh. Okay. Sorry I didn't pick up on what you were trying to tell me. I am unable to watch video with my internet service, so thanks for the written scenarios.

 

[lizzie]

In the first case, I would turn the trolley onto the sidetrack, because I assume my focus would initially have been on the five people in front of me, and that the second option with the lone person on the sidetrack, would be the immediate and obvious choice resulting in a sacrifice. My "Sophie's Choice."

Are the five lives more valuable (in reality) than the one? To me, this choice has no moral implications. I would do whatever my initial impulse instructed me to.

In the second case, the one where I'm an observer, I would not push the fat man.
In my second decision of whether or not to push the fat man, I would not push the fat man. The principle could still stand, because I do not have immediate and technical control of the situation. I am merely an observer. I have no right to sacrifice another for the many where I am not involved except as an observer.

Agreed, but I'm still not convinced that this has more of a moral implication than the first scenario. I just know that I would be unwilling to proactively kill the fat man in a situation where he was not involved except as another observer of the situation.

 

[Dante]

[you'll need video.

I should post a link to discussions of some sort without making it look like USMB is being made to look at worthwhile competition.

Oh. Okay. Sorry I didn't pick up on what you were trying to tell me. I am unable to watch video with my internet service, so thanks for the written scenarios.

The people in the audience (students at Harvard) had debates online over the morality of positions. The subject is the morality of murder: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"

 

[Big Black Dog]

Not enough information provided to solve this problem. Please provide more information if you need an accurate answer.

 

[Dante]

In the first case, I would turn the trolley onto the sidetrack, because I assume my focus would initially have been on the five people in front of me, and that the second option with the lone person on the sidetrack, would be the immediate and obvious choice resulting in a sacrifice. My "Sophie's Choice."

Are the five lives more valuable (in reality) than the one? To me, this choice has no moral implications. I would do whatever my initial impulse instructed me to.

In the second case, the one where I'm an observer, I would not push the fat man.
In my second decision of whether or not to push the fat man, I would not push the fat man. The principle could still stand, because I do not have immediate and technical control of the situation. I am merely an observer. I have no right to sacrifice another for the many where I am not involved except as an observer.

Agreed, but I'm still not convinced that this has more of a moral implication than the first scenario. I just know that I would be unwilling to proactively kill the fat man in a situation where he was not involved except as another observer of the situation.

In the first case it is my actions that cause the man's death, unavoidable as it may seem, it is avoidable. It is avoidable if I were to allow events to unfold without acting. I would have killed the five. I would have killed the five because I was unable to move the train onto the sidetrack in order to save them.

In the second case, I have a choice. I can allow events to unfold, with knowledge of a way to save five and sacrifice the one. This a scenario presented only if the principle in the first stood. As the scenario is presented I have a choice over who is to die, the one or the five.

 

[Dante]

Not enough information provided to solve this problem. Please provide more information if you need an accurate answer.

Two thread posts have titles: Part 1 & Part 2. They have the synopsis of the video. The questions in the first few posts are larger questions that go to the heart of the whole course. They are not meant to be answered without more information.

--


The video is in another thread and in this one in Post #6 -- the second of two video links.

The Part 1 & Part 2 posts are post #8 & post #9. All of this is on the first page.


I give an answer in post #10

 

[xotoxi]

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

Episode 1: three questions?

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

No. We just say that we do to make ourselves feel better about our miserable and ultimately painful existance.

2) Does a fair procedure justify any result?

No. Take for example Jim Joyce's call of safe in Armando Galarraga's perfect game. The procedure was fair. The result was wrong.

3) What is the moral work of consent?

Scrotum.

 

[lizzie]

In the second case, I have a choice. I can allow events to unfold, with knowledge of a way to save five and sacrifice the one. This a scenario presented only if the principle in the first stood. As the scenario is presented I have a choice over who is to die, the one or the five.

The question remains: Are 5 lives more valuable in reality than 1? If so, why?

 

[Dante]

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

Episode 1: three questions?

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

No. We just say that we do to make ourselves feel better about our miserable and ultimately painful existance.

2) Does a fair procedure justify any result?

No. Take for example Jim Joyce's call of safe in Armando Galarraga's perfect game. The procedure was fair. The result was wrong.

3) What is the moral work of consent?

Scrotum.

I apologize. The thread above wasn't completely edited before you posted this wonderful piece of brilliant reasoning: http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/128768-usmb-justice-whats-the-right-thing-to-do-2.html#post2622754

 

[Dante]

In the second case, I have a choice. I can allow events to unfold, with knowledge of a way to save five and sacrifice the one. This a scenario presented only if the principle in the first stood. As the scenario is presented I have a choice over who is to die, the one or the five.

The question remains: Are 5 lives more valuable in reality than 1? If so, why?

I guess I'll state what should be obvious here, but may not be because of the way I've presented what I have without control over how I could do it. I apologize.

The purpose of the lecture and class (@ Harvard) in the video is not so much to elicit answers to the main questions, the tougher ones, as it is to frame answers based on scenarios given. As the smaller questions are answered and reasoning given, the questions progressively take on a much broader scope -- comparing and contrasting philosophical theories and such.

So to answer your question, are five lives more important than one? Back full circle: It depends.

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do?

It depends.



It depends on which philosophical school of thought one subscribes to. In reality, no we don't have certain fundamental rights, except the right to our own thoughts and beliefs. By consent and majority belief, yes we do have fundamental rights to life, liberty, and personal property.

2) Does a fair procedure justify any result?

From my personal stance of Deontoligical ethics, the answer would most likely be yes. I adhere to the thought that the end does not justify the means.

1) Do we have certain fundamental rights?

1) It depends? I agree, but I think 'it depends' is too vague an answer. Depending on what, when and where (and more) covers a lot of territory.

This is actually a set of questions from the Series: Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Series: Justice What's The Right Thing To Do?

But just answering the questions in the way that you have is a breath of fresh air around here. You've also injected a term I have never seen used on here before: Deontological ethics.

The term "deontological" was first used in this way in 1930, in C. D. Broad's book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.

thank you

dD