Okay, welcome future Harvard-WOWO graduates. This kicks off our first group bigWOWO class. Man, that film work is awesome. I don’t know about you, but I found both the lesson and presentation very engaging.
For those who are new to bigWOWO, this is the first in a series of discussions that we’re having. We’re all taking this Harvard class together.
View the video above, and discuss below! Let’s educate ourselves!
Related posts:
But here is an...
I agree with everything you said. About #1…I think...
Okay, post something if you want your certificate. You can say nonsense if you want, but you’re all on the honor system to watch it if you’re on track to get WOWO-certified!
I liked how he broke morality down into consequentialist and categorical thinking. I really don’t think anyone is one or the other; I think we all break it down into a combination of the two: what would happen vs. what is right. And maybe that’s the right thing to do. I think lying is wrong. If a friend asks how his ugly shirt looks, I’ll tell him it looks ugly, so that he knows to correct it. But if he asks about his ugly shirt that his new girlfriend just bought him, I might be inclined to lie if I think it will help his relationship. I think we set priorities and base them on a combination of consequences and personal codes.
Also, on that question of the runaway train: I think people also rate morality based on their gut feelings, which can be influenced by visceral thoughts. Steering a train into a lone man doesn’t seem as bad as pushing a fat guy off a bridge because the action is less direct. You have to actually touch the guy in the second case. It’s much the same way that discharging a gun at a man will often get you a lower sentence than stabbing him 20 times. The latter tends to elicit a more visceral response from juries.
Damn it Jaehwan, stop giving away the answers. I haven’t watched the video. And I actually want to learn how to be powerless yet just, fair, moralistic, and crap (I mean stuff). Lol.
Jaehwan:
Do you have the reading list? It has been a long while since I read Bentham, Locke or many of the others enumerated. I need to brush up on their conclusions.
At first blush, I don’t think it is fair to assign value on anyones life until it is over. But it is easy to say, one dead person is better than five dead people, but taking someones life before it is natrualy over is not something one human being can do to another.
I am reminded of Elizabeth I problem with issuing a death warrant for Mary, Queen of Scots. Elizabeth viewed Mary as her equal, a sovereign anointed by god and she did not feel she had the right to sentance Mary to death. Not everyman goes through an annointing process, but the concept is the same. How can any of us be justified to kill another person? Morally and legally there are circumstances in which the taking of a life is justified and the reasoning will differ. But if we are to rely on Bentham to articulate principles, off the cuff I think we need to determine the parameters in valuing someone’s life and I think that can only be under certain circumstances, such as natrual death or then that person causes the death of another.
With that said, I need to do some homework.
As for the train on the tracks and the fat man on the bridge, I think the workers on the tracks are already in peril. To take a bystander and put him in peril is crossing the line.
At that slipt second, you don’t know if the falling man will stop the train. The train could still hit and kill him and kill the worker(s) on the track. Or the man could fall after the train passes and be killed on his own. If one is so sure that the fat man falling will stop the train, why not jump off yourself?
There is a time to value people. For example, Someone who is unhealthy, overwight, smokes and does not exercise, should pay more for health insurance. Someone who is prone to accidents and reckless driving should probably pay higher car insurance, but just because someone is accident prone, or unhealthy doesn’t mean they should be valued less in a life and death situation. It doesn’t mean we eat them out of necessity, or push them infront of a moving train.
woah, must increase my reading…..
You know what’s interesting–it’s never just a matter of numbers. If I were to jump and kill myself to stop the train, I’d be lauded as a hero. If I pushed the fat guy off, I’d be condemned as a murderer..and a jerk. In either case, one life was given so that more lives could be saved, but people also have categorical criteria in evaluating the situation. I suppose there’s a difference between giving your life and taking another person’s.
On 9/11, I remember reading a report about how Dick Cheney authorized the military to shoot down one of the planes that was heading for the White House. One could argue that he put his own life before the people on the plane, but one could also argue that he put the country before the people on the plane. I happen to agree with his decision since I think it would be devastating if Al Qaeda succeeded in killing our president and VP, although if there were a self-contained bomb on that plane, I probably would not expect someone on that plane to comply with a presidential order to detonate it.
I agree with Jaehwan and American girl, that sometimes it depends on assessed “value” of the human being being sacrificed, For the runaway tram, if the five were all honky hillbillies who partook in incest and the one man was Albert Einestein or Martin Luther King would people still think in terms of numbers? It seems to be about value, and in real life, both consequential and categorical reasoning are adapted by people when they make moral decisions.
lol, “then they finished the turtle and can of turnips and murdered the cabin boy and ate him” why didnt they catch another turtle? how did they even catch one in the first place? thats amazing!
The cabin boy categorical objections are similiar to the chicken and the egg argument, you can’t value people equally with fundemental rights without concern for the greater good, but greater good has to be individualised to all memebers of society. So people do have rights but they are dependent on the rights and powers of others. So maybe there has to be a balance or shared consensus.
In general it seems that fair procedures do justify the results, however, who determines what is fair? and in real life is there even such a thing as fairness? If it had been the cabin boys killing the captain and feasting on him, i dare say that the public print at the time would have been so sympathetic, as the social class and age differences would have affected their judgement. They chose the person with the least physical, economic and social class power to kill and eat. That kind of says it all about if it could even thought to be “fair”
In terms of moral consent, how can consent be given in without regard to everything else? it doesnt occur in a vacume, it will be shaped by everything else in society.
Its really great these resources are available online, definitely must increase my reading!!
I have to apologize, I actually watched this first one the night you sent out the invite – so hopefully I remember things straight.
With regards to the run-a-way Car scenario, imagine this:
Situation 1: Run-a-way car hurdling at a group of 5 workers of whom you don’t have any connection to – with your best friend working on the alternative rail for you to turn on to.
Situation 2: Run-a-way car hurdling down a rail at your immediate family – but there’s this skinny, beer bellied, unwashed haired, dirty man in his late 80′s about to be on his deathbed, with an aura of a foul oder (who will also, apparently, 100% guaranteed stop the car if you push him in front of it.)
… oh you know what – Anna did a pretty good example up there.
As discussed in the class, I find it interesting that between the two situations (you in the car, and you as an onlooker) Whereas a discussed difference between the two, is that one you’re making a conscious decision to establish involvement in the situation, and in the other it wasn’t your choice to have to make the decision (even if the “do nothing” choice yeilds the same result.)
In my situation #1 would you push the man?
Discussed per class “Murder is murder” – You may choose not to because actively choosing to take one persons life (murder) is morally objectionable by your societal means. Or you may choose to push him because you wouldn’t be able to bear having your family die before you very own eyes, and the misery that comes after. Now here is my problem, you’re left with weighing between taking someones life, and living in dispair. Two consequence based choices. Granted – you may still yield to “for the greater good” logic but you would still have to deal with the loss of your family.
Is simply using a “consequentialist” and “categorical” enough?
… but you know what — I’m listening right those two things are the involvement in how you choose righteousness and evil. (I should have listened again before writing)
Lets do that again…
So our morals are based the weight between the categorical and consequentialist philosophies. And in the end, based on our societal, and personal experiences making up our lives.
So would it be accurate to say that between categorical and consequentialist principles would allow us to “understand” another persons culture? or personality? That a large portions of cultural traditions that may have once been based upon a categorical or consequentialist principle? That the ones that aren’t held so strongly are so because that previous categorical or consequentialist principle has little business existing in modern day?
Hmm – I’m getting my thoughts all twisted right now. I’ll sleep on this and come back another time. Lol
“I don’t know about you, but I found both the lesson and presentation very engaging.”
I found the lecture engaging also. It reminded me of the “good old days” of college and huge auditorium classes.
I like what the Professor said about philosophy as a form of “estrangement.” Philosophy is not just something that grey-haired professors in the ivory tower do–or at least it shouldn’t be.
Philosophy is a way of seeing the familiar or conventional with new eyes and thus of questioning received wisdom on morality and politics.
Philosophy is thus kind of like art in this “estranging” quality. The work of Picasso and Cubism are good examples of how estrangement works in painting, where everyday objects are represented in fractured forms in order to see them anew.
“Also, on that question of the runaway train: I think people also rate morality based on their gut feelings, which can be influenced by visceral thoughts.”
It’s interesting that you brought this up. There seems to be a growing trend in philosophy that makes this argument about how morality works.
It’s called Intuitionism or Morality 2.0 as the guy below calls it. As I understand it, intuitionism questions the rationalist basis of both Consequentialist and Categorical morality.
Rationalism suggests that people make their moral judgements based upon reason. The lost seamen decide whether or not it’s right to eat the cabin boy by using moral logic and deduction.
Intuitionism suggests that people make their moral judgements based upon instinctive emotion and sentiment and then *retroactively* use reason to justify this judgement. The lost seamen decide whether or not it’s righ to eat the cabin boy based upon instinct and then use reason to justify their decision.
In the video below, the guy calls it using one’s “inner lawyer” or post-hockery reason.
Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3896569197654224883