What’s the Right Thing to Do? 1: The Case for Murder & The Morality of Cannibalism

Moral Principles As we argue about the right thing to do, several moral principles begin to emerge. In the first version of the trolley car scenario, the right thing to do seems to rest on the idea that it’s better for one person to die in order to save five other lives. In other words, it’s the consequences of an action that matter This is called: consequentialist moral reasoning, locating the morality of in the consequences of an act

Moral Principles However, in the second version of the trolley car scenario, the consequentialist principle doesn’t seem to apply. What seems to matter in the second version is the intrinsic quality of the act of pushing the man over the bridge, consequences be what they may People felt that killing an innocent person was categorically wrong, even to save five lives This is called categorical moral reasoning, which locates morality in certain duties and rights

Moral Reasoning “We sometimes think of moral reasoning as a way of persuading other people. But it is also a way of sorting out or own moral convictions, of figuring out what we believe and why.”

Moral Dilemmas “Some moral dilemmas arise from conflicting moral principles. For example, one principle that comes into play in the trolley story says we should save as many lives as possible, but another says it is wrong to kill an innocent person, even for a good cause. Confronted with a situation in which saving a number of lives depends on killing an innocent person, we face a moral quandary. We must try to figure out which principles have greater weight, or is more appropriate under the circumstances.”

Contingent Positions “Given the passion and intensity with which we debate moral questions in public life, we might be tempted to think that our moral convictions are fixed once and for all, by upbringing or faith, beyond the reach of reason” But if this were true, moral persuasion would be inconceivable, and what we take to be public debate about justice and rights would be nothing more than a volley of dogmatic assertions, an ideological food fight.” “But it need not be this way. Sometimes, an argument can change our minds.”

Moral Reflection “As we encounter new situations, we move back and forth between our judgments and our principles, revising each in light of the other. This turning of mind, from the world of action to the realm of reasons and back again, is what moral reflection consists in.”

Utilitarianism Consequentialist moral reasoning Founded by Jeremy Benthem The right thing to do, the just thing to do, is to maximize utility Utility = the balance of pleasure over pain, happiness over suffering We are governed by two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain The right thing to do, individually and collectively, is that which maximizes overall happiness “the greatest good for the greatest number”

Queen v. Dudley and Stevens 1884 legal case Newspaper account: “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, 1300 miles from the cape. The were four in the crew: Dudley, the captain; Stevens, the first mate; Brooks, a sailor; all men of excellent character. The fourth crew member was the cabin boy, Richard Parker, 17 years old. He was an orphan, he had no family, and this was his first voyage at sea.”

Adrift at Sea Without Hope of Rescue

Questions There are times when the only way to prevent harm to a large number of people is to harm a smaller number of people. Is it always permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm to a large number?

Questions Suppose you are driving through a narrow tunnel and a worker falls onto the road in front of you. There is not enough time for you to stop. If you keep straight, you will hit the worker and kill him, but if you swerve left into oncoming traffic, you will collide with a school bus and kill at least five children. What’s the right thing to do? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?

Questions Ten thousand innocent civilians live next to a munitions factory in a country at war. If you bomb the factory, all of them will die. If you don’t bomb the factory, it will be used to produce bombs that will be dropped on fifty thousand innocent civilians in another country. What’s the right thing to do?

Questions Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber?

Questions Now suppose the man who has planted the bomb will not reveal the location unless an innocent member of his family is tortured. Should it be legal for the police to torture innocent people, if that is truly the only way to discover the location of a large bomb?