Notes from Harvard's Justice
Note: These notes are from Ongoing Course. I will update them as I go along.
Table of Contents
The Trolly Question
We sometimes think of moral reasoning as a way of persuading other people. But it is also a way of sorting out our own moral convictions, of figuring out what we believe and why.
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.
Other moral dilemmas arise because we are uncertain how events will unfold. Hypothetical examples such as the trolley story remove the uncertainty that hangs over the choices we confront in real life.
Marcus Luttrell and the Afghan Goatherds shows how a moral dilemma can arise from uncertainty, where we are uncertain about the consequences of our choices.
One way to begin is to notice how moral reflection emerges naturally from an encounter with a hard moral question. We start with an opinion, or a conviction, about the right thing to do: “Turn the trolley onto the side track.” Then we reflect on the reason for our conviction, and seek out the principle on which it is based: “Better to sacrifice one life to avoid the death of many.” Then, confronted with a situation that confounds the principle, we are pitched into confusion: “I thought it was always right to save as many lives as possible, and yet it seems wrong to push the man of the bridge (or to kill the unarmed goatherds).” Feeling the force of that confusion, and the pressure to sort it out, is the impulse to philosophy.
This way of conceiving moral argument, as a dialectic between our judgments about particular situations and the principles we affirm on reflection, has a long tradition. It goes back to the dialogues of Socrates and the moral philosophy of Aristotle.
We get two different ways of moral reasoning: Consequentalist and Categorical.
Consequentalist: judges the morality of an action based on its outcomes or consequences. Example, Utilitarianism
Categorical: judges the morality of an action based on intrinsic principles, regardless of consequences. Example, Deontology (Immanuel Kant)
Utilitarianism
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case
On summer 1884, The ship Mignotte wrecked. 4 men stranded on a lifeboat on South Atlantic. Dudley, the captain,Stephens, Brooks, and Richard Parker, 17, the cabin boy. Richard Parker was sick from the beginning. After 19 days of starvation, on 20th day, Dudley killed him with pen knife. They fed on his flesh.They were rescued later by a passing ship. They were arrested and charged.
Would consent of Richard Parker matter here? Why would consent make a moral difference?
Would a lottery draw in this case, will make it morally fair/permissible? Since, everyone has equal chance of survival.
Questions raised:
- Do we have certain fundamental rights?
- Does a fair procedure justify any result?
- What is the moral work of consent?
Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Bentham, born in England, 1748. According to him, The highest principle of morality. Whether personal or political morality. Is to maximize the general welfare or collective happiness or the overall balance of pleasure over pain. Maximize utility
Maximizing utility is not only for personals, but for communities and legislators also.
All humans are governed by two sovereign masters: pain and pleasure.
The Famous Quote: "The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation."
Utilitarian Principle is used cost-benefit analysis.
One famous case is Philip Morris Study. where they calculated the cost and benefits of smoking and came to conclusion that smoking benefits the society more than it costs.
| COSTS | BENEFITS |
|---|---|
| Increased Health Care Costs | Tax Revenue from Cigarette Sales |
| (from early deaths) Health Care Savings | |
| Pension Savings | |
| Savings in Housing Costs |
Another similiar case is Ford Pinto's cost-benefit analysis, where they calculated the value of human lives and cost to repair parts, and the conclusion costs to repair was more.
Should and can monetary value be put on human life for cost-benefit analysis?
Wouldn’t greater good for the greater number lead to majoritarianism?
Objections to Utilitarianism:
- Fails to respect individual/minority rights
- Not Possible to aggregate all values into monetary amount
In 1930, an American psychologist, Edward Thorndike tried to addresss the second questions. How much people are expecting to get paid to experience unpleasant things? The Most expensive response was to live in a farm in Kansas: $300,000
John Stuart Mill
Hypothetical question: if the number of dog fights lovers >>> number of Opera lovers. Should Government subsidize dog fights?
Jeremy Bentham: "The quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry"
Isn’t there a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?
JS Mill, born in 1806, a child prodigy, a later day utilitarian, tried to address the objections.
Whether utilitarian ideas can be enlarged and modified to accommodate humanitarian concerns, individual rights, and distinction between higher and lower pleasures
In 1859, JS Mill wrote "On Liberty". In 1863, "Utilitarianism"
"The sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do desire it." - JS Mill
How would we distinguish b/w higher and lower pleasures?
Mill says: Only test is whether someone who has experienced both would prefer it
"Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, then that is the more desirable pleasure." - JS Mill
"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their side of the question." - JS Mill
"While I dispute the pretensions of any theory which sets up an imaginary standard of justice not grounded on utility, I account the justice which is grounded in utility to be the chief part, and incomparably the most sacred and binding part, of all morality ... " - JS Mill
"Justice is a name for certain moral requirements, which, regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility and are therefore of more paramount obligation than any others." - JS Mill
While Mill is a utilitarian, he argued justice is essential for the long-term well-being of society, as it ultimately leads to greater happiness for all
Bentham’s body is embalmed and preserved in display in University of London. So, people can visit this great philosopher and may his body come to ever more utility. Talk about dedications /s :).
Bentham thought there are no natural rights ("nonsense upon stilts"), whereas Mill thought utilitarian moral theory supports the idea that we should recognize individual rights.
Bentham thought we should only concern ourselves with the quantity of pleasure (hedonic calculas), and remain nonjudgmental about the quality. Mill believed some pleasures are of a higher quality than others.