3/9/20 Edmund Yuen PD 7

Monday, March 9th, 2020.

Edmund Yuen Pd. 7

“Ingratitude is the essence of vileness.” - Immanuel Kant.

Note: Today’s blog will be up to personal interpretation and my viewpoint of Mr. Spellacy’s 

lesson is from my own personal philosophical ideals. Feel free to let the class know your personal viewpoint in the comments.

Today in Mrs. Fusaro’s class of Gods, Monsters, and the Apocalypse, Mr. Spellacy came in to teach us a short lesson about Philosophy. I had always known Mr. Spellacy to be the quirky substitute teacher who seemed to be extremely knowledgeable about various subjects. I was surprised to learn that he majored in Philosophy and I anticipated writing about his lesson in today’s blog. In middle school,  I used to take a Philosophy class so I sympathized when Mr. Spellacy noted that Philosophy is a difficult major to interpret and understand. 

In the prior night’s reading, we had learned about the teachings of Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Utilitarianism. We were also tasked with learning the Trolley Pulley dilemma. This problem has a trolley, that has no way to stop. On the tracks, are 5 people who cannot move. You have the option to pull a lever to divert the train onto another track where there is only one person on it. Essentially, the problem determines whether or not you will pull the lever.

Mr. Spellacy explains that if you pull the lever you are utilitarian and if you choose not to, you are Kantian. A majority of the class chose to pull the lever. Shannon argued based on the Good Samaritan Law. If you are able to help someone out of life-threatening circumstances, you should not suffer any repercussions. However, Alan and Steven argued that if you choose to pull the lever, you turn from a passerby into someone who has committed murder. If you choose to pull the lever, it is your fault that the one person died and it will weigh on your conscience.  Personally, I agreed with the Kantians but I also understood Utilitarianism. Humans are social creatures by nature. We choose to help those around us as it provides us benefits. However, a situation like this can cause us more harm if we choose to pull the lever. The weight on our conscious would be unbearable if someone dies because of our actions.

Mr. Spellacy then explained another dilemma for us. It was the Queen vs. Dudley and Stephens case in 1884. Essentially, a yacht called the Mignonette held four crew members. A captain (Dudley), a first mate (Stephens), a crewmate (Brooks) and a cabin boy (Parker). The ship ended up sinking and the four of them were stranded on a life raft with only two tins of turnips. They caught a sea turtle but quickly ran out of food and started to starve. The captain, Parker, and the first mate eventually decided to kill the cabin boy (who was in a coma due to drinking seawater) and they ate him. Mr. Spellacy asked whether or not it was morally correct to do this and if we would have done the same if we were in the same situation.  

A surprising majority of the class now ended up choosing to not kill the cabin boy. The major reasoning behind this was because you are directly killing him, you are more morally responsible for your action. The reasoning behind choosing to kill him was that if you are truly in such a situation where your life is at stake, you would also choose to kill him. Steven stated that “all humans are selfish by nature” and that their decision is something many people would make. Personally, I felt that killing him was morally correct. There have been numerous occasions in history where this situation has occurred and cannibalism was necessary to survive.

Mr. Spellacy clarified that both schools of thought have their own flaws as well. Kant leads to numerous other consequences as well. For example, he said “If an ax murderer it looking to kill me and I ask Mrs. Fusaro to hide me. When the murderer comes, if Mrs. Fusaro is a Kantian, she would just tell where Mr. Spellacy is hiding.

I found this particularly amusing but also a major flaw in Kantians. I personally considered myself more Kantian than Utilitarian and this made me consider again.

However, Utilitarianism can also result in other consequences as well. If you constantly consider the debate of value and calculate the overall net good, there will always be someone who suffers and you may end up being that someone.

Student Reflection

Today was an extremely interesting lesson as we learned a lot about Ethical Philosophy. We learned about Immanuel Kant’s theory as well as Jeremy Bentham’s idea of Utilitarianism. I believe Mrs. Fusaro put this lesson at the end of our Grendel reading for a purpose. Within that novel, we found Grendel constantly questioning his own morality and his own existence. Mrs. Fusaro wanted us to consider Grendel and Beowulf’s actions in a new light after we reconsidered the true meaning of personal morality and the weight of one’s actions. I hope to use what I learned in this lesson further on in the future as I hope to minor in Philosophy in my education.