Victoria Zhu PD8 3/10/2020

3/9/20 

Victoria Zhu PD 8

Today Mr. Spellacy came to our class held a discussion on ethics. 

As part of the required reading, these were some important points: 

• “Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good.  It is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of the consequences produced.” (taken from the Stanford paper)
• “Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) is the central figure in modern philosophy. The fundamental idea of Kant’s “critical philosophy” – especially in his three Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason, the Critique of Practical Reason, and the Critique of the Power of Judgment – is human autonomy.” (taken from the Stanford paper) Mr. Kant’s theory is an example of deontological ethics where the action isn’t based on the consequences. 

Ethics- What makes an act just? 

• Some located the morality of the act in the consequences- this is consequential ethics.
• Some located morality in the intrinsic quality or character of the act- this is deontological (duty) ethics. 

Mr. Spellacy talks about Jeremy Bentham (founder of modern utilitarianism). Bentham says there are simply as human beings have 2 sovereign masters- pain and pleasure. Everybody likes pleasure and nobody likes pain. So the right thing to do is to maximize that ratio. When Bentham died, his body was preserved and can be seen at the College of London. Mr. Spellacy then introduced the trolley problem to the class. 

The Trolley Problem 

There is a trolley barreling down the tracks towards five-track workers. There’s time to switch the tracks to another one that only has one track worker. Whichever track they chose would kill all those on the track. Would you switch the tracks to kill one man’s life in exchange for five lives? (there are other renditions of this problem)

• Almost unanimous, the class voted to switch the tracks in favor of fewer deaths. Only two voted to remain on the original tracks. 
• Minority- Alan said that it was not fair. What makes that one person less important than the five? Who are we to change the course of the trolley?- an issue with the act of pulling the switch
• Gabby said she would pull because five deaths would more consequences. The deaths would affect more than just five people. If there’s one death, yes there are still those that affected but not as much.- maximizing the utility, maximizing the overall happiness. 
• Stanley said he would pull because if you pull the switch, you choosing to kill one person but if you don’t pull the switch you’re basically choosing to kill the five people.- if you chose not to decide you still make the choice
• Mat said he would because it would decrease the number of causalities 
• We mentioned the rendition of the problem with the fat guy. 

The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens, 1884 

 An English yacht shipwrecked leaving its four crew members stranded: Captain Dudley, First-mate Edwin Stephens, Sailor Edmund Brooks and cabinboy Richard Parker. The men were of good character and the boy was an orphan with no family. Dudley suggested a lottery but Brooks objected. Later on, Dudley made the executive decision to kill the cabinboy as he had drank some seawater. Soon after, the men were saved. They were tried and founded guilty for murder but were quickly pardoned. 

What this morally justified? 

• This time the votes were more balanced and many were unsure of a decision.
• Mat said that killing and eating somebody for their survival is fine but the way they went about it was morally unjustifiable. He thought it would be fairer if they held a lottery then each of them would have an equal chance. He didn’t like how they just selected him to die.- no problem w killing but a problem with the lack of due process 
• Alan said it was justifiable because the boy was sick. He would probably die anyways 
• Gabby introduced the idea of a win-lose vs a lose-lose. If the boy wasn’t killed then they would’ve all died. 
• What would happen if they weren’t rescued?- lottery? 
• The idea of whether consent or volunteer would change the situation 
• We had no problem with the idea of taking a life but a problem with the idea of taking away autonomy.  

Car situation 

If the car was bumped, it would explode. The owners knew about this but didn’t recall the cars and just dealt with the cases because it was cheaper than installing a rubber inside the gas tank to eliminate the risk.- this puts a monetary value over human life.  

Reflection-

Today we discussed the difference between consequential ethics and deontological ethics. One involves the greater good while the other focuses on the individual. The situations given helps us tackle the idea of morality. In the first problem, I believed that you should pull the switch to save the five people at the cost of one life under the consequential idea. Killing fewer people would mean a greater good for society. In the second problem, I also chose the consequential route and believed that the murder was morally justified. This decision was harder to made because we as the audience was given more details about each specific person. You know for a fact that killing the boy would have a smaller impact than killing one of the other men. With this argument and stating how the boy is already sick from drinking seawater, I believe it is morally justified. Although I also think there should be a lottery but I think in times of urgency, this method would waste a lot of time as you would have to convince each person to the agree to the lottery and go through with it. The switch from moving a switch to killing and eating someone- the second scenario creates a more personal association thus causing people to feel more unsure of their decision. When we have no association with a group, no details about them, then it’s easy to choose for the greater good. When its more personally, we tend to gravitate towards a more deontological approach. I think this lesson focuses on how ethics has no right answer. Each person has their own beliefs and justifications.