This document summarizes and discusses Michael Sandel's lecture on moral reasoning and different philosophical approaches. It discusses two main types of moral reasoning: consequentialist, which focuses on outcomes, and categorical, which focuses on the character of the act itself. It provides examples from the lecture involving trolley problems and discusses how utilitarianism fits with consequentialist reasoning. The document also analyzes different scenarios like the case of Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens through the lens of these moral frameworks.
This document summarizes and discusses Michael Sandel's lecture on moral reasoning and different philosophical approaches. It discusses two main types of moral reasoning: consequentialist, which focuses on outcomes, and categorical, which focuses on the character of the act itself. It provides examples from the lecture involving trolley problems and discusses how utilitarianism fits with consequentialist reasoning. The document also analyzes different scenarios like the case of Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens through the lens of these moral frameworks.
This document summarizes and discusses Michael Sandel's lecture on moral reasoning and different philosophical approaches. It discusses two main types of moral reasoning: consequentialist, which focuses on outcomes, and categorical, which focuses on the character of the act itself. It provides examples from the lecture involving trolley problems and discusses how utilitarianism fits with consequentialist reasoning. The document also analyzes different scenarios like the case of Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens through the lens of these moral frameworks.
This document summarizes and discusses Michael Sandel's lecture on moral reasoning and different philosophical approaches. It discusses two main types of moral reasoning: consequentialist, which focuses on outcomes, and categorical, which focuses on the character of the act itself. It provides examples from the lecture involving trolley problems and discusses how utilitarianism fits with consequentialist reasoning. The document also analyzes different scenarios like the case of Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens through the lens of these moral frameworks.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
Sandhya Senthilkumar
Period 3 online 10/20/20
Michael Sandel "What's the Right Thing to Do?"
The moral principles of the people when deciding which was the right thing to do, in all of the scenarios presented during the lecture, were based on either the consequences or the character of the act itself. The first type of moral reasoning is called Consequentialist moral reasoning. In this type of reasoning, the moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your action. In short, it locates morality in the consequences of an act. After you turn to the side track and kill that one person instead of five, you justify the morality of your act by saying that you saved five people by killing just one- which is based on the consequence. The other type of moral reasoning is called categorical moral reasoning. This type locates morality in certain duties and rights, regardless of the consequence. In short, you justify morality based on the intrinsic quality and character of the act itself, despite the consequences. Some people weren’t sure about the consequentialist moral reasoning when they hesitated to push the fat man off the bridge onto the track, even if it means it can save five people. The same thing happened with the people who hesitated to yank the organs out off an innocent patient even if it means to save five people instead. The based their morality on the type of act (killing) and not the leading consequence (saving five people).
Utilitarianism, a doctrine invented by the 18th century English philosopher Jeremy
Bentham, is the most important principle in the Consequentialist moral reasoning. On the other hand, Immanuel Kant is the most influential political philosopher in the categorical moral reasoning. The philosophy of utilitarianism states that the right thing to do is to maximize utility, where the word utility means the balance of pleasure over pain and happiness over suffering. Humans are governed by two sovereign masters- pain and pleasure. Based on utilitarianism, the right thing to do is to act in a way that maximizes the overall level of happiness. The background of the case of Queen Vs Dudley and Stephens was that the defendants- Thomas Dudley, and Edwin Stephens and two other men, Mr. Brooks and Richard Parker, were stranded on a boat for several days. When it appeared that they were likely to die out of thirst and starvation, the Defendants decided to sacrifice Parker for the survival of the rest. Stephens and Dudley justified that their killing of Parker was out of necessity and that it was going to save three people at the end. This was also done without the consent of Parker. But during the trial, it was declared that Cannibalism was illegal, and that necessity for survival doesn't justify murder and hence, in the end, they were announced to be guilty.
In the first scenario, I would have agreed with the majority- turning the trolley to the side track and killing one person instead of five. I chose my moral reasoning based on the final consequences. When I am caught up in an unavoidable situation where the final decision will either way end up in killing a person, my only concern now is to not make things even worse and hence end up killing that one person instead of five. For the second scenario, the first thing that would have come to my mind was to shout to the workers on the track informing them about the danger ahead of them rather than pushing the fat man beside me off the bridge. Though this defeats the purpose, that is what I would have done. But if I have to choose between pushing the fat man off the bridge or not, I would not. If I push him, I am directly involved in murder though I would end up saving five people. I am against the act of killing. I lean towards categorical moral reasoning in this case. Same goes for the third scenario. As a doctor, I can’t just kill an innocent person even if it means to save five people. As a doctor, if you are performing that act, you are going against the medical ethics. But if I have that person’s consent in donating their organs, then it would be a different case. In the case of Queen Vs Dudley and Stephens, based on my moral philosophy, the killing of parker, even for the reason of necessity, was wrong. There was also no consent involved during this killing. I place a strong importance on consent. Without Parker’s consent, the other three crew members decided that he was the one who was going to die and killed him. Just like it was said in the lecture, if there was a scenario where all the crew members agreed to a lottery, which decided who was going to be sacrificed, and were aware of the fact that there was going to be a definite death at the end, and parker ended up being that person, then it would not be morally wrong if he was killed. In this case, Parker agreed to the lottery despite the risk involving it. If he ended up being not chosen out of the lottery, he would have also eaten the sacrificed person, hence committing cannibalism along with the other two crew members. Same goes for the other three members and hence, none of them would have been innocent. So I don’t care about cannibalism at this point and would rather focus on consent. But this was not the case in the real story- Parker had no idea that he was going to be sacrificed and in the end, the killing was morally wrong, even though it saved the other three crew members. As I had said before, consent plays a major role in my moral philosophy. Even if the only way to save hundreds of people is by killing one, if there is no consent involved, it is ultimately morally wrong in my opinion. Even that single person has the same human rights as the other hundreds and has the right to live.
Achieving Social Justice Through Civil Partnership To Govern The Rights of Sam-Sex Couples As An Alternative To Same-Sex Marriage Patricia Rachelle C. Espinoza I
