no producing WGBH Boston asociado Harvard University Wow walkways assertive as e-justice Oh Michael Sandel last time 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 we 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 reexamining those principles revising each
in the light of the other and we notice 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 and the consequences in the results in the state of the world that it brought about and we call this consequentialist moral reasoning but we also noticed that 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 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 18th 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 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 own 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 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 19th 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 that I want to hear how you would rule imagining that you or the jury a newspaper account of the time described the background 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 it's 1,300 miles from the Cape there were four
in the crew Dudley was the captain Stevens 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 17 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 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 they 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 the corner because he had drunk seawater against the advice of the others and he had become ill and he appeared to be dying so on the 19th day Dudley the captain suggested that they should all have a lottery that they should 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
the 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 Dudley told Brooks to avert his gaze and he motioned to Stevens that the boy Parker had better be killed Dudley offered a prayer he told the boy his time had come and he killed him with a pen knife stabbing him in the jugular vein Brookes 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 24th 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 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 yes I think it's I think it is morally reprehensible but I think that there's a stinks in between what's morally reprehensible and what makes someone legally accountable in other words you know as the judge said what's what's always moral isn't necessarily against the law and while I don't think that necessity justifies theft or murder or any illegal act at some point your degree of necessity does in fact exonerate you from
any guilt okay good other defenders other voices for the defense moral justifications for what they did yes all right thank you um I just feel like in the situation that desperate you have to do what you have to do to survive oh you have to do what you have to do yeah I've got to do what you had to do pretty much if you've been going 19 days without any food um you know someone just has to take the sacrifice someone has to make the sacrifice and people couldn't survive and furthermore from that let's say
they survive and then they become productive members of society who go home and start like a million charity organizations and this and that and this and that I mean they benefit everybody in the end yeah I mean I don't know if they did afterwards they might have gone in like gonna kill more people on whatever but what what if they were went home and they turned out to be assassins but they weren't going home and turned out to be assassins mmm well you'd want to know who they assassinated that's true too that's fair okay all
right that's good what's your name Marcus Marcus all right we've heard a defense couple voices for the defense now we need to hear from the prosecution most people think that they did was wrong why yes one of the first things that I was thinking was oh if they haven't been eating for a really long time maybe they they're mentally like affected and so then that could be used as a defense a possible argument that oh they weren't in the proper state of mind they weren't making decisions they might otherwise 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 were acting and would it I want to know what you think you defend them you I'm sorry you go to to convict right yeah I don't think that they acted in a 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 dad yes yeah that you've got to do what you've got to do
in a case like that yeah what do you say to Marcus but in that there's no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea of fate or that the other people's lives in their own hands that we don't have that kind of power good okay thank you any what's your name right Brett yeah okay who else what are you saying denna I'm wondering if Dudley and Stephen had asked for Richard Parker's consent in you know dying um if that would would that exonerate them from from an act of murder and if so is
that still morally justifiable that's interesting all right consent what's wait wait hang on what's your name Kathleen Kathleen says suppose they had at what would that scenario you look like so Oh in the story Dudley is there penknife in hand but instead of the prayer or before the prayer he says Parker would you mind we're desperately hungry as Marcus empathy empathizers with we're desperately hungry you're not going to last long anyhow yeah you can be a martyr would you be a martyr how about it Parker then then would it what do you think would it
be morally justified then submit suppose suppose Parker in his semi stupor says okay um I don't think it would be morally justifiable but I'm wondering 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 yes 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 any way 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 right and I think that if he was making a decision to give his life and 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 even the scent of Parker would not justify their killing him who thinks that yes tell us why stand up I think that a 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 who when they're gonna get rescued so if you
kill him it's killing him and Bane do you keep killing the 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 they were rescued when three at least were still alive now if if Parker did give his consent would it be alright do you think or not no no it still wouldn't be right and tell us
why it wouldn't be alright first of all cannibalism I believe is morally incorrect so shouldn't be eating human anyway so you so cannibalism is morally objectionable at suck so then even on the scenario of waiting until someone died still it would be objectionable yes assuming personally I feel like um it all depends on one's personal morals and like we can't sit here in just like this is just my opinion and of course other people are gonna disagree okay see let's see what their disagreements are and then we'll see if they have reasons that can persuade
you or not let's try that alright let's um 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 alright suppose there were a lottery cabin-boy lost and the rest of the story unfolded then how many people would say it was morally permissible so the numbers are rising if we
had 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 line 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 desires are more important than yours and mine take precedent and if they had done a lottery where 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 and 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 right and can someone who agrees with Matt say a little bit more about why a lottery would make it in your view morally permissible go ahead 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 something was gonna happen to him even 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 that's what happened in the actual case right but if there were a lottery and it all agreed to the procedure you think that would be okay right because then everyone knows that there's gonna be a death whereas you know the cabin we 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 all right now suppose he everyone agrees to the lottery they have the lottery the cabin boy loses and he 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 that you're dying for the you know the reasons for others to live you would if someone else had died you know that you would consume them so right but I 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 had he known what was going on it would be a bit more understandable all right good now I want to hear so there are some who think it's morally permissible but only about 20% 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 by Parker at the very last moment it would still be wrong and why would it be wrong that's what I want to hear yes well the whole time I've been leaning all towards the categorical moral reasoning and I think that there's a possibility I'd
be okay with the idea of a lottery and then the loser taking into their own hands to kill themselves so that there wouldn't be you know an act of murder but I still think that even that way it's coerced and also I don't think that there is any remorse like in Dudley's diary we were eating our breakfast it seems as though he's just sort of like um you know the whole idea of not valuing someone else's life so that makes me feel like I have to take the cata gonna throw the book at him when
he lacks remorse or a sense of having done anything wrong right so all right good other any other defenders of book who say it's just categorically wrong wither without consent yes stand up why I think undoubtedly to where society shape murders murder murder is murder and in every way in our side he looks at murder down down on in the same light and all thinks any different any case good let me ask you a question there were three lives at stake mm-hmm versus one okay the one 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 a London newspaper at the time and popular opinion sympathized with them Dudley and Stephens and the paper said if they weren't motivated by affection and concern for their loved ones at home and their dependents surely they
wouldn't have done this yeah and how is that any different from people on the corner trying to have with the same desire to feed their family I don't think it's any different I think in any case if I'm from murdering you don't invest my status that's murder and I think that we should look at all that on the same light instead of criminalizing certain activities and making certain things seem more violent and Savage when in the same cases it's all the same you saw the same act and mentality that goes in the murder undecisive it
feeds our family so suppose it weren't three suppose it were 3301 light to save three hundred or in wartime three thousand what was the stakes are even bigger suppose it takes everybody I think it's still the same do you think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do is to add up the collective happiness you think he's wrong about that I don't think he's 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 he's wrong all right thank you well done
all right let's step back from this discussion and noticed how many objections have we heard to what they did we heard some defenses of what they did the defense's had to do with necessity their 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 said what they did was categorically wrong Mike here at the end categorically wrong murder is murder it's always wrong even if it increases the overall happiness of society a 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 that said but 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 a 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 and 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
