Listen to Michael Sandel, Harvard philosopher as he introduces several moral conundrums, each designed to make the decision increasingly complex. We wrestled with these issues in class and had a wonderful time identifying principles that support our logic and critical thinking. Additionally, there are infinite implications for organizational ethics embedded in each scenario. That unique lens takes the conversation to an entirely different dimension. Enjoy!
In the case of the four men lost at sea. I thought the most intersting comment from class was the possibility of these men going to an island and beginning a brand new society. This society apparently would accept the notion that it is OK to kill someone who is weak and does not have a family even if he does not concent. Even more so it would support the idea that it is OK to murder if there is a greater good at stake. What type of society would this be? It is interesting to consider our own society and what we accept or reject as ethical when it comes to issues of life.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching Michael Sandle's facilitation of this discussion, I remained committed to the position I took in class, that killing another person is wrong, unless it is done in self-defense. However, Sandle raises an interesting question: "What is the moral work that consent does?" If the cabin boy had willingly given his permission to die to save the others, would killing him be permissible? After contemplating this, I still believe killing him would be wrong, I do not see a moral difference.
ReplyDelete"What is the moral work that consent does?", I have been thinking about this question since I first watched this lecture on youtube. It is very difficult to come to a conclusion of any kind and answer the question.
DeleteFor me, one of the core questions to be asked is, "Is simply 'not acting' a deliberate ethical choice or is it simply allowing the continuation of the inevitable (fate)?"
ReplyDeleteCaitlin,
DeleteThat is a great question; I am wrestling with the same thing for the past few days. I kept having nightmares where I am the train driver heading towards destruction. After re-thinking the situation, I thought I would just close my eyes and just let the train move forward instead of deliberately and intentionally positioning the train to kill a single person. But then not making a choice is also a choice that I am making.
I am trying to remember an old story I am sure we have all heard in one version or another. A guy is in a flood and is going to be washed off his roof to his demise. He is a man of faith and as the storm topples a tree neighbors on a safe roof top shout to the man to jump from his roof to the downed tree and climb to safety. He responds "No thank you, God will provide for me". As the flood waters continue to rise, the folks on the neighboring roof throw the man a rope and urge him to tie the rope around himself and they will tow him safely through the flood waters and to the safety of the neighboring roof. Again the man replies: "No thank you, God will provide for me". Finally, as the man's roof top is being finally consumed by the flood waters, a boat comes by and the occupants of the boat urge the man to grab hold so they can pull him to safety. Once again the man replies: "No thank you, God will provide for me". With that the man is washed off the roof, into the flood waters and is drowned. In Heaven the man confronts God and says "God why I am here? I was such a devout man, and I prayed and prayed you would provide for my escape from the flood". God responds back: What else could I do? I knocked over a tree for you; inspired your neighbors to rig a safety rope for you and even sent you a rescue boat. What else could I have done?"
DeleteGod is the easiest example for this allegory, but it could just as easily be told using the word fate. Why would the prospect of an alternate choice, like the one in the trolly case, be any less a matter of fate, then the predicament itself? Would it not be fate that such an option present itself? I don't know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI felt that in re: trolley car accident the first scenario (trolley car, driver with a choice on where to steer, and 1 track = 1 body, 2nd track = 5 bodies) was very different than the second situation and adding a bridge with a fat man who had no inevitable involvement unless I choice to put him into it. The first situation, a specific group was going to die inevitably. So could one justify throwing the fat man on the tracks since would not die unless I choice to kill him? And why would I? Also, what was the class discussion over how 5 dying could justify 1 living? Perhaps you believe in letting the universe play things out as it is meant to be. Not getting involved. Maybe those 5 were meant to be b/c Hitler was on board that car?
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting when the professor stated, "self knowledge is like loss innocents." After analyzing the statement I understand it as saying that we need be aware of our own decision making and the moral reasoning behind it. Essentially is our reasoning consequential or categorical?
ReplyDeleteThis new setting of the same discussion that we had made me realize how genuine the moral reasoning is! The whole new recognition of the moral reasoning is a way of translate the actions when he the professor addressed the concept of consequentialist" locates morality in the consequences of an act". To me choosing from two bad options is the best way to test the moral reasoning.
ReplyDeleteWatching others go through the thought processes we all experienced in class as they tackled the some of the same ethical conundrums we did was beneficial. Really breaking down the components into either consequential or categorical moral theory allows us to take these scenarios out of the realm of either the hypothetical, or extreme, e.g. the trolley car and the life boat stories, and evaluate how we make our decisions regarding less dire, or direct moral dilemmas.
ReplyDeleteMost of us will never be directly faced with life or death situations, that we know of, so studying these scenarios, at first, seems extreme, however what it has taught me is to be more reflective on the decisions, and thought processes that I am faced with. The reality is we never know what impact our choices have until its too late. Leaders in organizations regularly face critical decision processes that can have dramatic impact on the lives, and occasionally deaths of those around us. How we handle issues of laying people off, firing people - dealing with reductions in funding and therefore services our non-profit may have to face has real and life times life or death impacts on people.
Giving thought to these kinds of dilemmas allow us an opportunity to reflect, in the relative safety of the classroom, on who we assess our moral reasoning, build confidence in our moral stance, and change how we think about ethics and morality.
After watching Michael Sandle's discussion of the dilemmas I still stand firm on my original opinion. That killing the boy would be wrong under any circumstance. When Michael begins to increase the stakes by saying what if it were to save 300 or 3,000 I think it makes it more difficult however I still believe taking the boy's life is wrong. In the case of the Trolley I would still choose to save the five by hitting the one and I would also choose not to push the fat man over. The reasoning behind this is that choosing between one and five in the first circumstance you have no other option as the trolley is going to go down one of the tracks. In the second circumstance it is the same case with the cabin boy you would have to physically murder someone in order to save the others. This may not seem logical because you could argue that you are murdering the one on the track however that person is already on the track. I did think it was interesting that one of the students in the discussion brought up 9/11 and the plane crash that killed those on the plane but saved many more lives.
ReplyDeleteJessica, I find myself agreeing with your thinking. Though, as you say, it may be a bit contradictory. There is a distinct difference to me in actually physically murdering someone and changing the lanes of train. Changing the lanes in a sense is an act of murder, but not choosing to change the lane is an act of murder for 5 people (perhaps).
Delete