Is Killing Sometimes Justified? A talk by Prof Michael J Sandel
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 окт 2017
- Prof. Michael J. Sandel, Anne T. and Robert M. Bass, Professor of Government at Harvard University, delivers a talk on moral dilemmas at Infosys Bangalore campus.
Наука
![Megan Thee Stallion - BOA [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TKQY2ZlIEjY/mqdefault.jpg)
These people are taking the question too literally ruining the phyisophical value of the question
*Philosophical
the crowed is not looking very well educated
SIR you have tremendously inspired me due to your style and expression while delivering talks on different mediums, rather enhanced my passion of public speaking, so strongly think on your footsteps.
Media plural vs Medium singular
Thank you; the purpose of University Education is to create diverse societies, reasoning and arguing moral ethical principles. On laws that are Just, greatest happiness for the greater majority, what virtues are important to reward and lead to the good life, to think of philosophical principles that enhance a healthy society.
From what I understand, there was a problem of communication. Agreeing upon that their native language is not English and they are not skillful in it, it generated confusion rather than being lame as many claim
Yes, I agree.
I pray to Almighty God 🙏🙏 for the wellbeing and happiness for everyone in the Global World based on Friendship, Mutual Understanding, Peaceful Coexistence,Non Violence And Justice For All.
prosím profesor rozoberte otasku Koncentračný tábor a v posledne vete môžete ako ďaleko je v pre stihu munilost s súčastnosti s porovnaním druhého kontinentu
On the trolly question. I think the reason those who wouldn't turn were trying to give was that the person on the other track was not originally involved in the situation. If you turned, you would have made a conscious decision to kill him. As regards to the 5 on the current track, the train would have hit them even if someone else was in your place at that moment.. It was never up to you, but to kill the 1 guy on the other track would be your decision..
So, they would rather accept the situation as it is than to deliberately kill someone! I think that was their point!
There are very few people in every age who go against the general way of thinking in a society, and he's one of those very few people.
Talking about moral values and justice (not equality) in current political system is need of the day.
... cross cultural comparing between this crowd and the crowd in another lecture vdo in the US, does shows some differences. This one stressed a lot about "supposed" and "unfortunate". It reflects a system of belief on faith.
Life is just to love and to be Loved ❤️💜 Love alone can Conquer the World.
these audiences destroyed the whole objective of philosophical questioning to discuss principles. They were to afraid to be seen answering out of expected norms.
But thats the thing even the Supreme Court can only rule withib the framw of established laws. So because there s that disability act it cannot decide otherwise. The point remains to inly prove that the cart alters the bature of Golf or not it is not discussing the fairness of using the cart compared to other players. It can be even immoral and still they would decide against morality only to respect previously established laws.
Care ethics added here. That's nice
What about distribution of bread?
What does it mean to diserv best fluit? WHO give it to whom?
Majority will choose to kill one person instead of 5 but first of all the principle of killing remains the same whether 1 or 5 except that in the case of 1 you make a delibirate and arbitrary decision to choose who you kill when the first is driven by necessity.
In regards to affirmative action the roblem with considering the telos of a unuversity is that you should consider the telos of a degree itself. Is it to gurantee a level of knowledge and if so do you chabge its nature by including some people that may know less but because they're black or spanish they got it? And there is also another side to affirmative action its do you claim it or not? Do you apply to that university as any other white student or do you consider yourself s unpriviledged that you think you cannot compete? And by admitting so do you know not agree that you actually know less?
No, but what happend to my son i'm terrified.
Normally, trains, going to the certain destination, any unexpected action, is not the driver’s fault, and he should, go ahead with the destinations, because, the only person who keeps the law’s is the single worker ,and the things we have to be aware of is that the accident happens, and you don’t know if someone definitely dies
I think philosophy is all about moral and the social decision. In the first case I will suggest to go straight on the track because if I will divert the train to save five people and after that I have no Idea about the destination then it will be push the train to the dangerous situation and there may be the other train coming on opposite direction then there will be the large accident. Instead protecting five people you may push all the passanser to the dangerous situation.
Thanks
Harsh Kishor But let's just assume you know that if you go down the other track and hit the one man, you would not put the passengers in a difficult situation, what would you choose?
I am sorry to say but I find a general lack of empathy and more fatalistic attitude in the answers of the crowd.
I agree. I have seen all his other lectures in harvard of course on RUclips, and students half a age of this crowd has 100 times more empathy and intelligence.. I think the crowd here is more interested in showing off their answers rather and participating with really thoughtout points
Let the god do it, why do we (human beings)need to make the tough decision.
We make tough decisions every day whether or not there is a god.
Why the guy on the vagon could not himself jump ahead to stop the vagon in the first place:)? At least to try?
lying and cheating is definitely justifiable.
Better example would be with some kind of Chernobil...
NO SACRIFICES NEEDED.
He should have asked:
There are five working people in front and on the side track there is only a cow.
Gilberto Chazaro 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Brilliant.
Oh...you mean....five cows in front and on the side track there is only a human?
while I think every life on this planet has equal right to live, I wonder what if the person on the bridge(who is supposed to be pushed) is a great one who could transform millions of people.
If you come to that conclusion, couldn't you also say that maybe one of the five people could transform millions of lives?
There is an underlying assumption here that the five to be saved are good people.
patrickcon1 You are also assumingthat the one was a bad person or vice versus. You are placing that yourself.
His question was a question of numbers.
Are 5 lives more valuable than 1?
To add “what ifs” defeats the purpose of the question.
However.
Can 5 people do more good for the world than 1 person?
Statistically there’s a higher chance of that being the case.
Is it possible for 1 person to do more good than 5?
Lower odds statistically however it is very possible that that could be the case.
This question however doesn’t make assumptions.
At the beginning.
Here we are adding assumptions though.
5 people can do more harm than 1 person.
If we pose that “what if” then it’s better for society to save the 1 because 1 person can do less harm than 5 people.
This question, at its core, is a question of numbers.
BUT
It’s also a question of the collective view a society holds.
To summarize this question in my opinion.
I feel that this question is really a question of the collective perception of justice a society holds and agrees upon in regards to the impact a decision has on that society to benefit the most individuals.
A glass half full or half empty question.
Media can change a society from a glass half full (optimism) view to a glass half empty (pessimism) view.
What’s in the glass though? What’s the nature of the liquid inside it?
Water. It’s great for everyone.
A half full glass of water. Optimist.
A half empty glass of water. Pessimist.
Spoiled Milk. Bad for everyone lol
A glass half full. Pessimist. More to go.
A glass half empty. Optimist. Almost done
Roles reverse depending on the nature of the scenario in question and societies perception of the scenario and also their perception of what that true nature is.
I agree with the guy in the aqua shirt.... the train the supposed to be on that line...and fate. It wasn’t the fate of the 1 guy to die. That was a choice...made by the trolly driver. Whilst there is more carnage in 5 dying.... why should one guy die....just because he was alone? I didn’t like how Mr Sandel gave him a hard time about “fate”.
Yeah, making a calculated decision to aim at the innocent one... just doesn’t sit well with me. That’s a far more direct killing than an unintended tragedy.
When given a choice and not taking a choice is also a choice. Which in this driver case will cause more lives which is intentional.
@@isaiyan1002 I dunno. Why should the 1 guy die when he wasn’t supposed to. I think “what should be... should be”. There is also no right answer (ever) to this question too.
@@michelereid so the one guy wasn't suppose to die ? What you are doing here is you're talking in favour of categorical morality instead of consequential morality. The problem with categorical morality is that or in this case you're line of reasoning that he wasn't suppose to or he wasn't destined to die. It undermines freewill. The causal chain of effect where the train is destined to go one way which is one set of event and subsequently one the same track there is 5 people which is another set of event in the causal chain but turning the track for a less collateral damage is free will. Like I said before you actually have in this scenario three option 1. To choose 5
2. To choose 1 person
3. To not choose let it be the way it is. Is also a choice which puts the blood of 5 people in his hand.
@@isaiyan1002 yes I understand that. Good points you have too. But I think I’ll stick with the categorical morality then. It may be wrong, however I have given my reasons why. I think I would just let fate play out. Whilst saving 5 people is the better option.... I don’t think it’s my right to take the life of the 1 person... who wasn’t supposed to die. By the 3rd option you say of choosing to deviate off course and save life of 5... I don’t want that power to take someone’s life that was a deliberate act/choice. Just my personal thoughts.... and likely in the minority.
The hypothetical about the trolley driver whose brakes have failed forced to choose whom to kill posed by the Professor might not be so hypothetical for his audience. These people read the papers like everyone else and know full-well how frequently Indian National rail trains actually do run over pedestrians. The ethical conundrum the driver is then saddled with is not how many to kill but how to avoid being the fall-guy for his superiors who are probably responsible for the occurrence, the result of poor management, pocketing the money that should have gone for new brakes, skimping on maintenance to cover for inadequate funding, take your pick. In any event the driver knows that the low man on the totem pole will be stuck holding the bag, and that's him. The professor asked the audience to put themselves in the driver's shoes and it appears that's precisely what most of them did.
Good point.
And??? Is killing sometimes justified?
Michael Sandel is a god!!!!!!!
i dont have license to kill.
Honestly just don’t kill someone for no reason that’s all
Right, always do it for a reason
@@TremendousSax lol
I’m surprised at the intellectual acumen of these audiences .... they make such lame arguments.
You can't make strong arguments being pressured by time during such a lecture. I watched several of his talks and still don't have good arguments and I'm not sure what option to choose.
But hey, let us see yours. What arguments do you have? They must be well thought through. It's been a year since your comment :-)
Infosys people gives answer wich started with supposed to, assumed that.... What an idea irony 🤦
These people literally killed the interpretation of justice itself. These people are good with machine only
@@ShabdRagini-2023 i think not with that as well
If you murder a paedophilie or a rapist your a hero. So yes in some cases murder is justified
I can easily get a technical WRITER JOB and a NEW JOB and YOUR JOB WITH MY ENTIRE CAREER IN AMERICA. Oh silly BLONDIE birdie at MY worst friend's house during the prime OF OUR RELATIONSHIP TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER JOB that I CAN RELATE TO EACH OTHER IN AMERICA.
wtf are you talking about
Michel sandel bhi socha hoga..ye kanh aa gya mai...kitna ghatiya reply diya bhuto ne ....ek baar justice lecture dekh lete iska
Sandel is a rather lightweight philosopher who - like eastern establishment liberals - equates his liberalism and progressivism with "the good" and "the tolerant," not realizing how very ugly and wholly intolerant it can be toward opinion that does not agree "lock step" with it.
Answer = YES