Justice the Case for Cannibalism
Justice the Case for Cannibalism
We started out last time with some stories, and some dilemmas about trolley cars, and about doctors, and health patients vulnerable to be victims of organ transplantation. We noticed two things about the arguments we had, one had to do with the way we were arguing. We began with our judgment and special cases. We tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind our judgments. And confronted with a new case, we find ourselves reexamine the principles revising each in the light of the other. We noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring enlightenment. Our judgments about particular cases, and the principles we would endorse on reflect. We also notice something about the substance of those arguments that emerged from the discussion. We notice sometimes we attempt to locate the morality of an act in the consequences and in the results, escape the rules it brought about. And we call this consequential moral reasoning. But we also notice in some cases we wouldn’t be swayed only by the result. Sometimes, most of us felt, it’s not just consequences but the intrinsic quality or character of the act matters morally. Some people argue that there are certain things that are categorically wrong, even if they bring about good results, even if they save five people at the cost of one life. So we contrasted consequential moral principles with categorical ones. Today, and in the next few days, we will exam the most influential consequential moral theory, and that is the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English philosopher, gave the first systematic description of utilitarian moral theory. And Bentham’s idea, his central idea is a very simple one with a lot of morally intuitive appeal. Bentham’s idea is the following: the right thing to do, the just thing to do, is to maximize utility. What did he mean by utility? He meant utility the balance to pleasure over pain, happiness and suffering. Here is how we arrived at the principle of maximize utility. He started up by observing all of us. All human beings are governed by two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. We human beings like pleasure and dislike pain. So we should base morality whether we are thinking about what to do with in our own lives, or whether with legislators or citizens, we are thinking about what the law should be. The right thing to do individually and collectively is to maximize, acting in a way that maximize the overall level of happiness. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes summed up with the slogan: a greatest good for the greatest number. With this basic principle of utility on hand, let’s begin to test it and examine it by turning to another case, another story, but this time, not a hypothetical story, a real life story, the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens. This is a 19th century British law case that famous and much debated in law schools. Here is what happened in the case. I will summarize the story, and I will hear how you will rule, imagining you are the juror in the jury. A newspaper account of the time described the background. A sadder story than disaster of the sea was never told than that of the survivors of the yacht Mennonite, a ship found in south Atlantic 3000 miles from the cape. There were four, Dudley was the captain, Steven was the first mate, and Brooks was the sailor, all men with excellent character, or so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew member was the cabin boy, Richard Parker, 17 years old. He was an orphan. He had no family. And he was on his first long voyage at sea. He went, as the news account tells us, rather against the advice of his friends. He went in the hopefulness of his youthful ambition, thinking the journey would make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be. The fact of the case was not in dispute. A wave hit the ship and a minute later it went down. The four crew member escaped to a lifeboat. The only food they had was two cans of preserved turnips, no fresh water. In the first three days, they ate nothing. On the fourth day, they opened one of the cans of turnips, and ate it. The next day, they cutted a turtle, together with the other can of turnips, the turtle enabled them to subsist for the next few days. And for eight days, they had nothing, no food, no water. Imagine yourself in a situation like that, what would you do? Here is what they did: by now, the cabin boy Parker boy lying in the bottom of the lifeboat in one corner, because he had drunk sea water against the advice of the others. He became ill. And he appeared to be dying. So in the nineteenth day, the captain suggested that they should all have a lottery that they should draw a lot to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused, he didn’t like lottery idea. We don’t whether this is because he didn’t like to take the chance or he did believe in the categorical principles. But in any case, no lots were drawn. And the next day, there was still no ship in sight. So Dudley told Brooks to advertise his case, and he motioned to Steven that the Parker boy be killed. Dudley had a prayer, he told the boy his time had come. He killed him in a penknife, stabbing him in the jugular vein. Brooks emerged from his conscientious subjection to share a gruesome bounty. For four days, they fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy, true story. And then, they were rescued. Dudley described their rescue in his diary, in staggering euphemism, quoted on the 24th of the day: as we were having our breakfast, a ship appeared at last. Three survivors were picked up by a German ship. They were taken back to England, where they were arrested and tried. Brooks turned state witness. Dudley and Steve went to try. They didn’t dispute the facts. They claimed they had acted on the necessity. That was their defense. They argued on a fact: better than one should die so that three could live. The prosecutor wasn’t swayed by that argument. He said: “Murder is murder” until the case went to trial. Now imagine you as the jury, just to simplify the discussion, put aside the question of law. Let’s assume you, as the jury, are charged with deciding whether what they did was morally permissible or not. How many would vote “not guilty” that what they did was morally permissible? And how many would vote “guilty”, that what they did is morally wrong? A pretty sizable majority. Now let’s see what people’s reasons are and let me begin with people in the minority. Let’s hear first from the defense on Dudley and Steve. Why would you morally exonerate them? What are your reasons? I think it’s morally reprehensible, but I think there is instinct between what’s morally reprehensible and what would make some legally accountable. In other words, as the judge said what’s always moral isn’t necessarily against the law. I don’t think the necessity justifies theft, murder or any illegal act. At some point, degree of necessity doesn’t exonerate you from any guilt. Other defenders, other voices for the defense? Moral justifications for what they did? I just feel like, in a situation that desperate, you had to do what you had to do to survive, pretty much. If you had been going nineteen days without any food, someone needs to take the sacrifice or make the sacrifice and people can survive. And from that mercy they survive and they become productive members of the society who go home and open, like, a charity organization. I mean they benefit everybody then. I don’t know what they did. They might go home and kill more people. What if they went home and became an assassin? You do want to know who they assassinate. That’s fair. We’ve heard defense. A couple voices for the defense. Now we need to hear from the prosecution. Most people think they were wrong. One of the first things I was thinking was they haven’t been eating for long time, and they are mentally affected. That might be used as a defense possible argument that they weren’t in the proper state of mind. So they were making decisions they were otherwise not making. And if that is an appealing argument you have to be altered mindset to do something like that. It suggest that people find these argument convincing. But what do you mean? I don’t think they act in a morally appropriate way. Here is M, and he just defended them. You have to do what you gotta do in that case. There was no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea of fate to take the other people’s lives in their own hand. We don’t have that kind of power. I wondered if Dudley and Steve had asked Parker for his consent in dying. That would exonerate them from an active murder, and if so, it is so morally justifiable. In the story, Dudley was there, penknife in hand, but instead of the prayer, or before the prayer, he said: “Parker, would you mind? We are desperately hungry, as M empathized. We are desperately hungry, and you can’t last long anyhow. Would you be a model? How about it, Parker?” Then it would morally justify them? Suppose Parker in his semi-stupor says ok. I don’t think it would be morally justifiable. Even then they wouldn’t be? You don’t think that even with consent, it wouldn’t be morally justifiable. Are there any people who will take up on Catherine’s idea and say that would be morally justifiable? Raise your hands, if you think it would. That’s very interesting. Why would consent make such a moral difference? I think if he’s making his original idea and it’s his idea to start with, and that was the only situation that I could agree. Because that way, you couldn’t make the argument that he was pressured, and it’s 3 to 1. And if he is making a decision to give his life, and he took on the agency to sacrifice himself, which some people would say is admirable. And other people might disagree with that decision. So if he came up the idea, that‘s the only consent we have confidence in morally. Otherwise, it would be kind of coerced consent under the circumstance. Is there anyone think that even the consent of Parker would not justify their killing him, who thinks that? I think that Parker would be killed with the hope that the other crew member would be rescued. So there is no definite reason that he should be killed because you don’t know when they are going to be rescued. So if you kill him, it’s killing him in vain. Do you keep killing the crew member until you are rescued? The moral logic of the situation seems to be that, that they will keep on taking life of the weakest, one by one, until they were rescued. And in this case, luckily, they were rescued when 3 of them still alive. Now if Parker did give his consent, would it be alright? And tell us why it wouldn’t be alright. First of all, cannibalism is morally incorrect, so they shouldn’t eat human anyway. So cannibalism is morally objectionable. So even on the scenario, waiting someone to die will still be objectionable. I feel like it depends on one’s personal morals. This is just my opinion. Other people might disagree. Let’s see what their disagreements are and we will see if they can persuade you enough. Is there someone who can explain those of you who are tempted by consent, why consent can make such a difference? What about the lottery idea, is that counted as consent? Remember ant the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery. Suppose they had agreed a lottery. How many would, then, say it was all right? Suppose there was a lottery, the cabin boy lost. And then the story unfolded. Then how many would say it was morally permissible? So the number is rising if we add a lottery. For you, for whom a lottery will make a difference, why would it? I think the essential element in my mind that makes it a crime was that they decided, at some point, that their lives are more important than his. And I think it’s the basis for any crime. My needs, my desire is more important than yours, and my take president. They had a lottery that everyone consented someone should die. It, sort of, like the odd sacrifice himself to save the rest. Then it would be all right. It’s a little grotesque, but morally permissible. What bothers you was not the cannibalism but the lack of due process? I guess you could say that. Can someone who agrees with M, say a little bit more about why a lottery will make it, in your way, morally permissible? The way I understood it originally about the whole issue was that the cabin boy was never consulted about whether or not, something is going to happen to him, even with the original lottery, whether or not he would be a part of it, that he was just decided that he was the one that was going to die. Right, that’s what happened in the actual case. And if there was a lottery, and they would all agree to the procedure, you think that would be OK. Right, because then everyone knows there is going to be a death. Whereas, the cabin boy didn’t know the discussion is even happening. There is no fore warning for him to know that he might be the one that’s dying. Suppose there was a lottery, and everyone agreed to the procedure. The cabin boy lost, and he changed his mind. You’ve already decided. It’s a verbal contract. You can’t go back on that. The decision was made. If there was someone else to die, you would consume them. Had he know what was happening, it would be more understandable. So there are some who think it’s morally permissible, but only about 20%. Then there are some who say the real problem is the lack of consent, a lack of procedure, or Catherine’s idea a lack of consent at the moment of death. If we add concent, then more people are willing to consider the sacrifice moral justifiable. I’d like to hear that even with a concent, even with a lottery, even with a murmur concent from Parker at the very last moment, it would still be wrong. And why would that be wrong. The whole time I have been leaning towards the categorical moral reasoning, and I think that there is a possibility I’d be OK with a lottery and the loser taking into their own hands and kill them and say it would have been an active murder. I still seem that, even with that, it’s still been coerced. Also I don’t think there is any remorse in Dudley’s diary: “We are eating our breakfast”. It seems just reflected not value of someone else’s life. You want to throw our book at him, when he lacks remorse or reflects he hasn’t done anything wrong. Is there any defenders who say there are categorically wrong, even with a lottery. I think to Dudley, the society says MURDER IS MURDER. Murder is murder in every way. In our sight, it’s a murder isn’t the same way. I don’t think there is any difference in this case. Let me ask you a question, there are three lives at stake vs. one. The one cabin boy, he had no family, and no dependents, these other three had homes back in England. They had families. They had depends. They had wives and children. Think back to Bentham, he said we need to think the welfare, the happiness, the utility of everybody, and we have to add it all up. So it’s not just numbers three against one. It’s also all of these people at home. In fact, in London Newspaper that time, the public opinion sympathize them, Dudley and Stevens. And the paper said if they weren’t motivated by the affection and concern for their loved ones at home, dependants, truly, they wouldn’t had done this. And how’s there any difference with people on the corner? I don’t see a difference. I think in any cases, if I murder you to advance my status. That’s murder. And we should look at them in the same light. Is it criminal allows certain activities and make certain things more violent and savage? When in the case, it’s all same acts; the mentality goes in the act and the necessity to feed his family. Suppose there weren’t three, there were 300 people, and one life to save 300, or in war time, 3000. Suppose the stakes were even bigger. You think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do is to add up the collective happiness. You think he is wrong about that. I don’t think he’s wrong. But I think murder is murder in any case. Then Bentham has to be wrong. If you are right, he is wrong. Let’s step back from these discussion, and notice how many objections we’ve heard to what they did. We heard some defenses of what they did. The defenses have to do with the necessity, the dire circumstance and implicitly at last that the numbers matter. And not only numbers matter, but the wilder affects matter, their families at home, their dependants. Parker was an orphan. No one will miss him. So if you add up, if you calculate the balance of happiness and suffering. You might have a case for what they did was a right thing. Then we heard at least three types of objections. We heard objection said what they did was categorically wrong. Murder is murder, even if it increases the happiness of you all in the society, a categorical objection. But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong. Is it because even cabin boy has certain fundamental rights? Where do those rights come from if they don’t come from the welfare, the utility, and the happiness? Others said, a lottery would make a difference, fair procedure. And some people was swayed by that. That’s not a categorical objection, obviously. It say everybody has to be counted as equal, even at the end of the day one could be sacrifice in the general welfare. That leaves us another question to investigate. Why does the agreement of a certain procedure, even a fair procedure, justify whatever result flows from the opposition of that procedure? The basic idea of consent, Catherine got us on to this. If the cabin boy had agreed himself and not on the rest as was added, then it would be right to take his life to save the rest. Even more people side on to that idea. But that raises a third philosophical question: “What is the moral work that consent does? Why does a consent make such a moral difference and in an act that would be wrong taking a life without consent is morally permissible with consent.” To investigate those questions, we have to read some philosophers. And next time, we are going to read Bentham and John Stewart Mill, those Utilitarian philosophers.
We started out last time with some stories, and some dilemmas about trolley cars, and about doctors, and health patients vulnerable to be victims of organ transplantation. We noticed two things about the arguments we had, one had to do with the way we were arguing. We began with our judgment and special cases. We tried to articulate the reasons or the principles lying behind our judgments. And confronted with a new case, we find ourselves reexamine the principles revising each in the light of the other. We noticed the built-in pressure to try to bring enlightenment. Our judgments about particular cases, and the principles we would endorse on reflect. We also notice something about the substance of those arguments that emerged from the discussion. We notice sometimes we attempt to locate the morality of an act in the consequences and in the results, escape the rules it brought about. And we call this consequential moral reasoning. But we also notice in some cases we wouldn’t be swayed only by the result. Sometimes, most of us felt, it’s not just consequences but the intrinsic quality or character of the act matters morally. Some people argue that there are certain things that are categorically wrong, even if they bring about good results, even if they save five people at the cost of one life. So we contrasted consequential moral principles with categorical ones. Today, and in the next few days, we will exam the most influential consequential moral theory, and that is the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Jeremy Bentham, the 18th century English philosopher, gave the first systematic description of utilitarian moral theory. And Bentham’s idea, his central idea is a very simple one with a lot of morally intuitive appeal. Bentham’s idea is the following: the right thing to do, the just thing to do, is to maximize utility. What did he mean by utility? He meant utility the balance to pleasure over pain, happiness and suffering. Here is how we arrived at the principle of maximize utility. He started up by observing all of us. All human beings are governed by two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. We human beings like pleasure and dislike pain. So we should base morality whether we are thinking about what to do with in our own lives, or whether with legislators or citizens, we are thinking about what the law should be. The right thing to do individually and collectively is to maximize, acting in a way that maximize the overall level of happiness. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes summed up with the slogan: a greatest good for the greatest number. With this basic principle of utility on hand, let’s begin to test it and examine it by turning to another case, another story, but this time, not a hypothetical story, a real life story, the case of the Queen versus Dudley and Stevens. This is a 19th century British law case that famous and much debated in law schools. Here is what happened in the case. I will summarize the story, and I will hear how you will rule, imagining you are the juror in the jury. A newspaper account of the time described the background. A sadder story than disaster of the sea was never told than that of the survivors of the yacht Mennonite, a ship found in south Atlantic 3000 miles from the cape. There were four, Dudley was the captain, Steven was the first mate, and Brooks was the sailor, all men with excellent character, or so the newspaper account tells us. The fourth crew member was the cabin boy, Richard Parker, 17 years old. He was an orphan. He had no family. And he was on his first long voyage at sea. He went, as the news account tells us, rather against the advice of his friends. He went in the hopefulness of his youthful ambition, thinking the journey would make a man of him. Sadly, it was not to be. The fact of the case was not in dispute. A wave hit the ship and a minute later it went down. The four crew member escaped to a lifeboat. The only food they had was two cans of preserved turnips, no fresh water. In the first three days, they ate nothing. On the fourth day, they opened one of the cans of turnips, and ate it. The next day, they cutted a turtle, together with the other can of turnips, the turtle enabled them to subsist for the next few days. And for eight days, they had nothing, no food, no water. Imagine yourself in a situation like that, what would you do? Here is what they did: by now, the cabin boy Parker boy lying in the bottom of the lifeboat in one corner, because he had drunk sea water against the advice of the others. He became ill. And he appeared to be dying. So in the nineteenth day, the captain suggested that they should all have a lottery that they should draw a lot to see who would die to save the rest. Brooks refused, he didn’t like lottery idea. We don’t whether this is because he didn’t like to take the chance or he did believe in the categorical principles. But in any case, no lots were drawn. And the next day, there was still no ship in sight. So Dudley told Brooks to advertise his case, and he motioned to Steven that the Parker boy be killed. Dudley had a prayer, he told the boy his time had come. He killed him in a penknife, stabbing him in the jugular vein. Brooks emerged from his conscientious subjection to share a gruesome bounty. For four days, they fed on the body and blood of the cabin boy, true story. And then, they were rescued. Dudley described their rescue in his diary, in staggering euphemism, quoted on the 24th of the day: as we were having our breakfast, a ship appeared at last. Three survivors were picked up by a German ship. They were taken back to England, where they were arrested and tried. Brooks turned state witness. Dudley and Steve went to try. They didn’t dispute the facts. They claimed they had acted on the necessity. That was their defense. They argued on a fact: better than one should die so that three could live. The prosecutor wasn’t swayed by that argument. He said: “Murder is murder” until the case went to trial. Now imagine you as the jury, just to simplify the discussion, put aside the question of law. Let’s assume you, as the jury, are charged with deciding whether what they did was morally permissible or not. How many would vote “not guilty” that what they did was morally permissible? And how many would vote “guilty”, that what they did is morally wrong? A pretty sizable majority. Now let’s see what people’s reasons are and let me begin with people in the minority. Let’s hear first from the defense on Dudley and Steve. Why would you morally exonerate them? What are your reasons? I think it’s morally reprehensible, but I think there is instinct between what’s morally reprehensible and what would make some legally accountable. In other words, as the judge said what’s always moral isn’t necessarily against the law. I don’t think the necessity justifies theft, murder or any illegal act. At some point, degree of necessity doesn’t exonerate you from any guilt. Other defenders, other voices for the defense? Moral justifications for what they did? I just feel like, in a situation that desperate, you had to do what you had to do to survive, pretty much. If you had been going nineteen days without any food, someone needs to take the sacrifice or make the sacrifice and people can survive. And from that mercy they survive and they become productive members of the society who go home and open, like, a charity organization. I mean they benefit everybody then. I don’t know what they did. They might go home and kill more people. What if they went home and became an assassin? You do want to know who they assassinate. That’s fair. We’ve heard defense. A couple voices for the defense. Now we need to hear from the prosecution. Most people think they were wrong. One of the first things I was thinking was they haven’t been eating for long time, and they are mentally affected. That might be used as a defense possible argument that they weren’t in the proper state of mind. So they were making decisions they were otherwise not making. And if that is an appealing argument you have to be altered mindset to do something like that. It suggest that people find these argument convincing. But what do you mean? I don’t think they act in a morally appropriate way. Here is M, and he just defended them. You have to do what you gotta do in that case. There was no situation that would allow human beings to take the idea of fate to take the other people’s lives in their own hand. We don’t have that kind of power. I wondered if Dudley and Steve had asked Parker for his consent in dying. That would exonerate them from an active murder, and if so, it is so morally justifiable. In the story, Dudley was there, penknife in hand, but instead of the prayer, or before the prayer, he said: “Parker, would you mind? We are desperately hungry, as M empathized. We are desperately hungry, and you can’t last long anyhow. Would you be a model? How about it, Parker?” Then it would morally justify them? Suppose Parker in his semi-stupor says ok. I don’t think it would be morally justifiable. Even then they wouldn’t be? You don’t think that even with consent, it wouldn’t be morally justifiable. Are there any people who will take up on Catherine’s idea and say that would be morally justifiable? Raise your hands, if you think it would. That’s very interesting. Why would consent make such a moral difference? I think if he’s making his original idea and it’s his idea to start with, and that was the only situation that I could agree. Because that way, you couldn’t make the argument that he was pressured, and it’s 3 to 1. And if he is making a decision to give his life, and he took on the agency to sacrifice himself, which some people would say is admirable. And other people might disagree with that decision. So if he came up the idea, that‘s the only consent we have confidence in morally. Otherwise, it would be kind of coerced consent under the circumstance. Is there anyone think that even the consent of Parker would not justify their killing him, who thinks that? I think that Parker would be killed with the hope that the other crew member would be rescued. So there is no definite reason that he should be killed because you don’t know when they are going to be rescued. So if you kill him, it’s killing him in vain. Do you keep killing the crew member until you are rescued? The moral logic of the situation seems to be that, that they will keep on taking life of the weakest, one by one, until they were rescued. And in this case, luckily, they were rescued when 3 of them still alive. Now if Parker did give his consent, would it be alright? And tell us why it wouldn’t be alright. First of all, cannibalism is morally incorrect, so they shouldn’t eat human anyway. So cannibalism is morally objectionable. So even on the scenario, waiting someone to die will still be objectionable. I feel like it depends on one’s personal morals. This is just my opinion. Other people might disagree. Let’s see what their disagreements are and we will see if they can persuade you enough. Is there someone who can explain those of you who are tempted by consent, why consent can make such a difference? What about the lottery idea, is that counted as consent? Remember ant the beginning, Dudley proposed a lottery. Suppose they had agreed a lottery. How many would, then, say it was all right? Suppose there was a lottery, the cabin boy lost. And then the story unfolded. Then how many would say it was morally permissible? So the number is rising if we add a lottery. For you, for whom a lottery will make a difference, why would it? I think the essential element in my mind that makes it a crime was that they decided, at some point, that their lives are more important than his. And I think it’s the basis for any crime. My needs, my desire is more important than yours, and my take president. They had a lottery that everyone consented someone should die. It, sort of, like the odd sacrifice himself to save the rest. Then it would be all right. It’s a little grotesque, but morally permissible. What bothers you was not the cannibalism but the lack of due process? I guess you could say that. Can someone who agrees with M, say a little bit more about why a lottery will make it, in your way, morally permissible? The way I understood it originally about the whole issue was that the cabin boy was never consulted about whether or not, something is going to happen to him, even with the original lottery, whether or not he would be a part of it, that he was just decided that he was the one that was going to die. Right, that’s what happened in the actual case. And if there was a lottery, and they would all agree to the procedure, you think that would be OK. Right, because then everyone knows there is going to be a death. Whereas, the cabin boy didn’t know the discussion is even happening. There is no fore warning for him to know that he might be the one that’s dying. Suppose there was a lottery, and everyone agreed to the procedure. The cabin boy lost, and he changed his mind. You’ve already decided. It’s a verbal contract. You can’t go back on that. The decision was made. If there was someone else to die, you would consume them. Had he know what was happening, it would be more understandable. So there are some who think it’s morally permissible, but only about 20%. Then there are some who say the real problem is the lack of consent, a lack of procedure, or Catherine’s idea a lack of consent at the moment of death. If we add concent, then more people are willing to consider the sacrifice moral justifiable. I’d like to hear that even with a concent, even with a lottery, even with a murmur concent from Parker at the very last moment, it would still be wrong. And why would that be wrong. The whole time I have been leaning towards the categorical moral reasoning, and I think that there is a possibility I’d be OK with a lottery and the loser taking into their own hands and kill them and say it would have been an active murder. I still seem that, even with that, it’s still been coerced. Also I don’t think there is any remorse in Dudley’s diary: “We are eating our breakfast”. It seems just reflected not value of someone else’s life. You want to throw our book at him, when he lacks remorse or reflects he hasn’t done anything wrong. Is there any defenders who say there are categorically wrong, even with a lottery. I think to Dudley, the society says MURDER IS MURDER. Murder is murder in every way. In our sight, it’s a murder isn’t the same way. I don’t think there is any difference in this case. Let me ask you a question, there are three lives at stake vs. one. The one cabin boy, he had no family, and no dependents, these other three had homes back in England. They had families. They had depends. They had wives and children. Think back to Bentham, he said we need to think the welfare, the happiness, the utility of everybody, and we have to add it all up. So it’s not just numbers three against one. It’s also all of these people at home. In fact, in London Newspaper that time, the public opinion sympathize them, Dudley and Stevens. And the paper said if they weren’t motivated by the affection and concern for their loved ones at home, dependants, truly, they wouldn’t had done this. And how’s there any difference with people on the corner? I don’t see a difference. I think in any cases, if I murder you to advance my status. That’s murder. And we should look at them in the same light. Is it criminal allows certain activities and make certain things more violent and savage? When in the case, it’s all same acts; the mentality goes in the act and the necessity to feed his family. Suppose there weren’t three, there were 300 people, and one life to save 300, or in war time, 3000. Suppose the stakes were even bigger. You think Bentham is wrong to say the right thing to do is to add up the collective happiness. You think he is wrong about that. I don’t think he’s wrong. But I think murder is murder in any case. Then Bentham has to be wrong. If you are right, he is wrong. Let’s step back from these discussion, and notice how many objections we’ve heard to what they did. We heard some defenses of what they did. The defenses have to do with the necessity, the dire circumstance and implicitly at last that the numbers matter. And not only numbers matter, but the wilder affects matter, their families at home, their dependants. Parker was an orphan. No one will miss him. So if you add up, if you calculate the balance of happiness and suffering. You might have a case for what they did was a right thing. Then we heard at least three types of objections. We heard objection said what they did was categorically wrong. Murder is murder, even if it increases the happiness of you all in the society, a categorical objection. But we still need to investigate why murder is categorically wrong. Is it because even cabin boy has certain fundamental rights? Where do those rights come from if they don’t come from the welfare, the utility, and the happiness? Others said, a lottery would make a difference, fair procedure. And some people was swayed by that. That’s not a categorical objection, obviously. It say everybody has to be counted as equal, even at the end of the day one could be sacrifice in the general welfare. That leaves us another question to investigate. Why does the agreement of a certain procedure, even a fair procedure, justify whatever result flows from the opposition of that procedure? The basic idea of consent, Catherine got us on to this. If the cabin boy had agreed himself and not on the rest as was added, then it would be right to take his life to save the rest. Even more people side on to that idea. But that raises a third philosophical question: “What is the moral work that consent does? Why does a consent make such a moral difference and in an act that would be wrong taking a life without consent is morally permissible with consent.” To investigate those questions, we have to read some philosophers. And next time, we are going to read Bentham and John Stewart Mill, those Utilitarian philosophers.
还没人赞这篇日记
