Trolley Dilemma: Driver's Moral Challenge
A thought-provoking scenario where you, as the trolley driver, must make a life-or-death decision. With the trolley speeding out of control towards five workers on the track, your choice holds crucial implications. Explore the ethical dilemma of choosing between staying on course, resulting in multiple casualties, or diverting the trolley to a different path where it would harm a single individual. The complexity of this situation delves deep into moral reasoning and human nature's inherent value of life.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
CONSIDER: Scenario: The Runaway Trolley (pg. 21) You are a driver of a trolley which has lost control and is going 60 mph down the track. You see 5 workers ahead, but you can t stop. If you continue down the track, you will kill all 5 workers (no ands, ifs, or buts about it). You notice a side track ahead as well, and if you turn the trolley on to the track you will save the 5 workers, but there is also one worker on that track who you will also kill. What do you do? Why?
CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE The trolley is still hurtling towards the five workers on the track. This time, you are an on-looker watching from a bridge. You happen to be standing next to a heavy set man who you know that if you were to push him onto the tracks, he would knock the trolley off of the track, and you would save the five workers. The man would die. What do you do?
CONSIDER: #1: You re a doctor and six men show up in the ER (horrible trolley accident). One is critical and five are severe. You could work all day and save the one or work all day and save the five. Who do you save? Why?
#2: Youre a doctor and five men are need of transplants, but you have no organs. You remember that there is a healthy patient in the room next door. Do you go in and take all of his organs and save the five men? Why or why not?
THE PRINCIPLES WHICH GUIDE YOU You have begun to explore the principles which guide your actions: right and wrong. We can define these principles as morality or ethics: the philosophy for deciding right and wrong. In another context, we could define it as just decision making or justice. If we are going to explore social, political, and economic institutions and systems, we need to be able to measure them. We will measure the success of these institutions by determining if they are just. If we are going to be making personal financial decisions, we need to concern ourselves with a means to determine if those decisions are good or bad.
JUSTICE HOW DO WE MEASURE WHAT IS JUST? WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG?
ASSESSMENTS Three page essay: - You must apply the concepts we are discussing in the Justice Unit to another unit: Education, Media, or Healthcare (unless we have discussed otherwise). - You must decide if the current system (or a specific aspect of a system) is just or not just using one of the principles discussed in this unit as well as the details discussed in that unit. - Follow the guidelines for writing that are on the website. - 50 points
NEW ASSESSMENTS 1. You have to take a position on a public policy (law) using one of the principles discussed. (Individual) 1. Recreational Marijuana 2. Capital Punishment 3. Free College 4. Soda Tax (New York) 5. Universal Healthcare (Single Payer) 6. Handgun Ban (D.C. Law) 7. You Choose 2. Debate on abortion (Group) 1. Placed in a group (you don t decide), and you must use the principles discussed to determine and argue if LAWS should allow or should not allow. (no gray area)
ASSESSMENT 1. You have to take a position on a public policy (law) using one of the principles discussed in a two page position paper. (Individual) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Recreational Marijuana Capital Punishment Free College Soda Tax (New York) Universal Healthcare (Single Payer) Handgun Ban (D.C. Law) You Choose
MORAL REASONING 1) Consequentialist: locates morality in the consequence of an action. - Morality of an action totally depends on the consequences it brings about; the right thing to do is whatever will produce the best state of affairs. Categorical: locates morality in certain duties and rights (reasons of the intrinsic value of the act itself). 2) - Certain duties and rights should command our respect, for reasons independent of the social consequence. There are numerous philosophers which have tackled these two lines of reasoning, and we will explore these philosophical thoughts (briefly) to try to determine the moral reasoning that best defines Justice.
JUSTICE: THREE COMPONENTS How should society be organized? (class, laws, economic systems) What should our laws be? At the heart of these questions is justice. What is justice? There are three components or ideas that must be considered: 1) Maximizing Welfare 2) Respecting Freedom 3) Promoting Virtue (certain characteristics/values that a society needs to cultivate in order to be a good or the best society) [Promoting The Good Life ]
CONSIDER: PRICE GOUGING Hurricane Charley hits Florida. There is over a billion dollars worth of damage; homes are destroyed; and basic utilities aren t functioning. - Prices begin to increase: Hotel rents increase from $40/night to $160/night. Bottles of water Bags of ice Generators ($250 to $2000) Roofers Is there anything wrong with price gouging? - - - - - - - Should there be a law to restrict price gouging?
ARGUMENTS The unfettered Market Place: - Free Markets maximize freedom or choice and economic freedom. - While some may feel that it is unfair, to leave the Markets unregulated is in the best economic interest of the population (promotes for the General Welfare). - Is this just following basic principles of supply and demand? Regulate Price Gouging: - Not in the best welfare because of the burden those prices place upon people who have been placed in extraordinary circumstances of no fault of their own. - No burden to the rich, but a major burden to the middle and lower economic brackets. - Hurricane is a forced circumstance. This is not a voluntary exchange, and therefore, these aren t free markets. Is this situational greed? Is this a virtuous act? A society that takes advantage of people in times of crisis for financial gain is not virtuous. A good society should then discourage greed.
VIRTUE Who has the right to determine if greed is a vice? Is it not dangerous to impose such judgments about virtue through law? A philosophical question: Should society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens through law? Or should law be neutral toward competing conceptions of virtue so that citizens can be free to choose for themselves the best way to live?
TRADITIONAL (CLASSICAL) V. LIBERAL Determining a just society usually starts with either promoting virtue or freedom, and therefore, the systems we design must consider these characteristics. - Often, the traditional (classical) view of society believes in the promotion of virtue. - With the outset of democracy and liberal beliefs, there is a greater push for choice and freedom. To ask whether a society is just is to ask how it distributes the things we prize- income and wealth, duties and rights, powers and opportunities, offices and honors. A just society distributes these things in the right way but what are people due? - Welfare, freedom, and virtue
UTILITARIANISM Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), an English moral philosopher founded the doctrine of utilitarianism. - The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure and pain. - Citizens and legislators should ask: If we add up all the benefits of a policy and subtract all the costs, will it produce more happiness than the alternative? (34) - People may believe in certain absolute rights and duties; but they would have no basis for defending these duties or rights unless they believed that respecting them would maximize human happiness. Objections?
OBJECTIONS: RIGHTS Individual Rights: In the name of meeting the sum of satisfaction, we trample individual people and rights. - Example: Throwing Christians to lions- Do the Christians rights mean anything in the comparison of the ecstasy of the crowd of on-lookers? - Example: Torture for information? - Example: City of Happiness - Omelas is a city of happiness and civic celebration, a place without kings or slaves, without advertisements or a stock exchange, a place without an atomic bomb. But there is one catch. In basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas, there is a room. It has one locked door, and no window. And in this room sits a child who is feeble-minded, malnourished, and neglected. They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas They all know that it has to be there They all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children .even the abundance of their harvest depend wholly on this child s abominable misery If the child were brought out into the sunlight of the vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed, but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms.
OBJECTIONS: COMMON CURRENCY OF VALUE Utilitarianism is based on a measurement, but there is not a common measurement/currency to determine utility. There is no standard scale of value. - Since there is no common scale, how can it be a common principle?
LIBERTARIANISM Favor unfettered markets and oppose government regulations, not in the name of economic efficiency, but in the name of human freedom. - - The right to do whatever we want with the things we own, provided we respect other people s rights to do the same. - Self-ownership Call for minimal state: 1) No paternalism: the right of the individual to decide what risks to assume (no seatbelt laws or motorcycle helmet laws). 2) No Morals Legislation: oppose using the coercive force of law to promote notions of virtue or to express the moral convictions of the majority. 3) No redistribution of income and wealth: no one s wealth should be redistributed by the government, but should be left up to the individual.
FREE MARKET PHILOSOPHY: ROBERT NOVICK Only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates persons rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified. (62) Taxation: - The moral stakes go beyond money- It is not about the money, but about the lack of freedom. - Taxation of earnings from labor is par with forced labor (slavery). - Thoughts?
OBJECTIONS: 1) Are there certain virtues and higher goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy? 1) Jury Duty and Military Service: Do the markets answer for these? If the markets do not meet the needs for national security, is it wrong for a government to enforce the draft? What would Justice look like if there was no requirement for citizen juries? How free are we to make decisions if we have no options? 2) 1) Lack of alternatives in the market place force me to make a decision that I don t want to make.
IMMANUEL KANT- DEONTOLOGY (REALLY TOUGH STUFF) If you believe in universal rights, you probably are not a utilitarian. Kant argues that rights depend on the idea that we are (or have the capacity to be) rational beings, worthy of dignity and respect (we have the capacity to shape our actions on more than mere natural instincts or social conventions). Morality is about respecting persons as ends in themselves (endeavor to further the ends of others). Kant rejects utilitarianism because it leaves rights vulnerable. Just because something gives people pleasure doesn t make it right. Just because the majority, however big, favors a certain law, however intensely, does not make the law just.
KANT: ORIGINS OF MORALITY Kant believes that we can reason our way to the moral law. He believes that this stems from our capacity to reason which stems from our capacity for freedom. 1) When we seek pleasure, we are not acting freely, but are slaves to desires and appetites. 2) To act freely, according to Kant, is to act autonomously which is to act according to a law that I give myself. 3) It is the opposite of acting heteronomously (a word invented by Kant)- to act according to determinations given outside of me. 1) Example: If I fall from the Empire State Building, my movement towards the earth is not of my own, but my motion is governed by the law of gravity. If I were to land on somebody and kill them, I wouldn t be held morally responsible because I was not acting freely. (The Falling is not immoral) 2) If you dropped a pool ball off the building and it hit somebody and killed them, you would not say that IT was immoral because it had no choice. 4) To act freely than is to act according to a law that I give myself. (A categorical imperative)
KANT: MORALITY The moral worth of an action consists not in the consequences which come from it, but the intention from which the act is done. - Example: an inexperienced shopper, a kid, goes into a grocery to buy a loaf of bread. The grocer could overcharge the child for the bread and the child would not know. But the shopkeeper knows that if word got out, it would hurt sales so he is honest and sells the bread at the proper price. Kant would say that this act is immoral. Why?
Why: Because the shopkeeper s intention behind his action was for the wrong reason (selfish), the action was, itself, immoral. The law that governed him was immoral. Universal laws or maxims should govern us, but we are free to decide these universal maxims. Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. (for everyone) = categorical (unconditional) imperative - Can you tell a white lie? - Let the consequences be what they may be. In real life application, laws and constitutions should then derive from the collective consent of its citizenry for what those categorical imperatives or universal maxims should be but Kant gave us no means for what our social contract or what that brand of justice would look like...
JOHN RAWLS: THEORY OF JUSTICE (1971) Consider: suppose that when we gather to choose the principles that govern us, we don t know where we will wind up in society. Imagine that we choose behind a veil of ignorance that temporarily prevents us from knowing anything about who in particular we are. We don t know our class, or gender, race or ethnicity, our political opinions or religious convictions. Nor do we know our advantages or disadvantages- whether we are healthy or frail, highly educated or a high school dropout, born to a supportive family or broken one. If no one knew any of these things, we would choose, in effect, from an original position of equality. Since no one would have a superior bargaining position, the principles we would agree to would be just. (You may end up being Bill Gates, but you may end up being a guy sleeping in the street.) A hypothetical agreement in an original position of equality. this is what should guide our social contract or constitution. If I am negotiating with someone who has greater knowledge than I do, the contract is not just, but if we are identically situated and come from a place of equality, then we have a just and moral contract. - - -
RAWLS ON JUSTICE Two principles: - First- [It should] Provides equal basic liberties for all citizens such as freedom of speech and religion. - [Assumes that people would not take risks from an original position of equality] - Second- Concern for the economic and social wellbeing of all. - Not knowing where we will enter society after the contract is created would force us to consider the difference principle - only those social and economic inequalities are permitted that work to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
ARISTOTLE- TELEOLOGICAL Central to Aristotle s political philosophy are two major ideas: 1) Justice is teleological. Defining rights requires us to figure out the telos (the purpose, end, or essential nature) of the social practice in question. 2) Justice is honorific. To reason about the telos of a practice- or argue about it- is, at least in part, to reason or argue about the virtues it should honor and reward. - Education: what is virtuous behavior in an education system? - - Depends on the Telos But in determining the telos, we need to determine what behaviors or characteristics we hope it to promote. It is those behaviors that are then characterized as virtue or virtuous.
Justice means giving people what they deserve, giving each person his or her due. - Justice discriminates according to merit. - Who should get the best flutes? The best flute players - In order to determine the just distribution of a good, we have to inquire into the telos of purpose of the good being distributed through teleological reasoning. For Aristotle, the primary purpose of law is to cultivate the habits that lead to good character ( the good life ). - If we don t live in a political community, we are primarily beasts or animals. - Once in a body politic, we are then human. - To be the best humans (and live the richest lives), we must determine what will bring about the best community and political body. Which virtues will define us?
COMMUNITY AND JUSTICE Alasdair MacIntyre- After Virtue How is it possible to acknowledge the moral weight of community while still giving scope to human freedom? I can only answer the question what am I to do? if I can answer the prior question of what story or stories am I myself a part? Teleology and unpredictability can coexist. There does not need to be one universal principle or virtue that all humans should live by, but one defined by each individual community. We all approach our own circumstances as bearers of a particular social identity. I am someone s son or daughter, cousin or uncle; I am a citizen of this or that city, of this or that guild or profession; I belong to this clan, this tribe, this nation. Hence what is good for me has to be the good for one who inhabits these roles. As such, I inherit from the past my family, my city, my tribe, my nation, a variety of debts, inheritances, rightful expectations and obligations. These constitute the given of my life, my moral starting point. This is in part what gives my own life its moral particularity.
ARE WE OBLIGATED TO OUR COMMUNITY (TO ONE ANOTHER)? Liberal justice would argue no. Liberal justice requires that we respect people s rights, not that we advance their good. Whether we concern ourselves with other people depends on whether, and with whom, we have agreed to do so (consent is required for obligation). So the average citizen has no special obligation to his/her fellow citizens beyond not acting unjust. Example: Suppose two children our drowning, and you have time to save only one. One child is your child, and the other is the child of a stranger? Is it wrong to choose your child over the other? There is than an assumed special responsibility to the welfare of your own child. Can we then assume that we have obligations to some over others based off of some obligation of solidarity? This then comes back to the idea that we have duties and obligations to others in our communities.
SHOULD WE BE OBLIGATED? Should we advance our own (if we are obligated)? - How do we define our own ? - What are some of the issues that arise? - - - Consider discrimination in hiring Nationalism Southern segregationists
VIDEO: Begin at minute 10:00. Stop at 24:00. What were some of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments? How might you have argued it differently? Start again at 32:30
MANDELS FINAL THOUGHTS Three approaches to justice: 1) maximize utility or welfare 2) respect the freedom of choice 3) cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good. Mandel would argue that: To achieve a just society, we have to reason together about the meaning of the good life, and create a public culture hospitable to the disagreements that inevitably arise. A politics of moral engagement is not only a more inspiring ideal than a politics of avoidance. It is also a more promising basis for a just society.
