Justice with Michael Sandel: The Morality of Murder

For reference - a link to to lecture and associated readings:
The Morality of Murder and Cannibalism

I'm not entirely sure how we should arrange these discussions, but I suspect as we go on, we'll come to some normal format for the initial posts, much like our book reviews. For now I'll just start by formulating my thoughts/responses to the lecture and readings. Feel free to respond to anything you think worth discussing or bringing up any other points you think are worthy of discussion.

In regards to the lecture, I guess I had a few main thoughts. First among these is that the initial scenario suggested is extremely simplistic. In terms of making a point or starting a discussion, I consider that a perfectly valid method. However, where I think it becomes problematic is in the transition to asking what is the right thing to do. Framing the initial problem as a simple scenario and asking what's right or wrong implies a simple answer. I don't think that's necessarily the case. An example of this is shown shortly thereafter in the second scenario Dr. Sandel presents. The question is asked, are the men in the lifeboat guilty of murder, and people are supposed to answer whether they consider these men guilty of murder or not, essentially as if they were on the jury for them. I'm having a difficult time articulating what I want to say, so I'll just roll with it as is. The thought I had while listening to that discussion is that I consider there to be a difference between saying what is the right and wrong thing to do, and convicting another person of commiting the wrong thing to do. In the situation described, I don't think it was necessarily right to kill the weakest member. However, I don't think I could convict another person to murder for that act. I think that's a moment of extreme duress of which no member of the jury could have the faintest knowledge unless they'd been in one just like it themselves. In that regard, was any member of the jury truly one of the defendant's peers? To me the scenario and consequential trial are much more complicated than the initial discussion point.

Another thought I had was that in all the discussions, the audience was essentially considered to be an observer rather than an active participant. No consideration was given in the train scenario with the fat man over the bridge that the person making the decision jump in front of the train themselves. But going back to the train scenario, I think the manner in which the questions were framed make it a little difficult. For the changing tracks part of the question, why is it framed as murdering the one at all? Essentially the person is faced with the choice of one dies or five die. Given the circumstances, it seems to me that turning toward the one is more a matter of minimizing an accident than it is killing one to save five. Whether or not that is just semantics, I can't really say.

Going on to the Bentham reading on utility, I thought the argument presented was also a little simplistic. It kind of needs to be, but at the same time, to categorize things into either pain or pleasure, along with a scale of how much they provide doesn't seem like an easy thing to do, along with who determines these things if making community level actions. The way the paper is written, it seems there is no value in pain, and always value in pleasure. Similarly, evil is framed as in the manner that it produces pain so it is to be avoided, but no consideration is given to the pleasure one might enjoy in certain kinds of evil.

Also, is utilitarianism then an argument against minority rights within a democracy? Hypothetically if five can gain at the expense of three, is that the just thing to do?

Sorry this post isn't very well organized, but I still had a busy week last week even after I was done with finals, and didn't want to delay any further in getting this initial post up.

Upcoming Academic Earth Series

Each week throughout the summer one of us will be leading a discussion on the following topics.  This is largely an effort to keep the blog interesting (and alive for that matter).  The tentative schedule is listed below.

Sunday, 4/24:The Morality of Murder (Steve Discussion 4/25-4/30)  

Sunday, 5/1: How Much is a Life Worth? (Jarrod Discussion 5/2-5/7)  

Sunday, 5/8: Redistributive Taxation and Progressive Taxation - Freedom to Choose (Brent Discussion 5/9-5/14)  

Sunday, 5/22:Natural Rights and Giving Them Up (Steve Discussion 5/23-5/28)  

Sunday, 5/29:Avoiding the Draft and Avoiding Parenthood (Jarrod Discussion 6/30-6/4)  

Sunday, 6/5: Motives and Morality (Brent Discussion 6/6-6/11)  

Sunday, 6/12:Lying and Principles (Steve Discussion 6/13-6/18)  

Sunday, 6/19:What's Fair and Deserved? (Jarrod Discussion 6/20-6/25)  

Sunday, 6/26:Affirmative Action and Purpose (Brent Discussion 6/27-7/2)  

Sunday, 7/10:The Good Citizen and the Freedom to Choose (Steve Discussion 7/11-7/16)  

Sunday, 7/17:Obligations and Loyalties (Jarrod Discussion 7/18-7/23)  

Sunday, 7/24:Same Sex Marriage (Brent Discussion 7/25-7/30)

http://www.academicearth.org/lectures/redistributive-and-progressive-taxation

File this under: Takes One to Know One

9/11 First Responders Say It's 'A Shame' Health Bill Needed Jon Stewart's Attention To Put It In Spotlight

I particularly like the line from Senator McConnell:

“Some have tried to portray this debate as a debate between those who support 9/11 workers and those who don’t,” McConnell said. “This is a gross distortion of the facts. There was never any doubt about supporting the first responders – it was about doing it right.

Now switch the sentence by replacing "9/11 workers" with "fighting terrorists" and "first responders" with "American troops."

Or switch "9/11 workers" with either "capitalism" or "socialism" and "first responders" with "America."

Other examples?

Paradigm Shift for Religious Right

Linked is a brief Newsweek article by Lisa Miller. Read it and then let's discuss. To warm you up, the writer is suggesting that the religious Right has shifted the focus from moral issues such as sexuality, divorce, etc. to patriotism in the form of anti-socialism, anti-big government, and anti-immigration. I'm wondering if some Christians feel disenfranchised by this shift, that is, that their religion is so political to begin with, especially on issues that are ambiguous in the Bible.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/09/one-nation-under-god.html

Election Disappointment

Just a brief thought on the election. I've really only been paying attention to politics for the last ten years. What seems to be increasingly clear to me is that there really is no reason to expect any improvement out of parties or legislators. Why do so if your party is swept out of office in one election, then can come back saying the exact same thing two years later and sweep back in?

To me it seems ludicrous that people should be fed up with Republicans in 2008, then think that the best option is going back to many of the same people in 2010 because they don't like what the Democrats did in those two years. If there was ever an opportunity for a third party to establish itself, it seems like this was it. Instead of a legitimate third option arising, all that we saw was what appears to be a faction of the right wing that's further away from 'center' and so doesn't really pose as a long term third option other than moving the Republican party further to the right and polarizing the process even more.

I would really like the American public to realize that politics need not be thought of as a continuum, where every issue falls on one side or the other, and the degree to which it varies from center determines how appealing it is. If you disagree with some issues but agree with others for a party, there really isn't going to be any candidate that can possibly appeal to you.

But like I said, if ever there was a time to establish this possibility, this year's election was it. As such, I suspect another method may be necessary if that system will ever change. I know we've discussed alternate voting methods before, but I suspect those will be nigh impossible to implement, as those in power are complicit in maintaining that power structure, so they have no incentive to change it.

What is the proper course of action for past transgressions?

Wellesley professor unearths a horror: Syphilis experiments in Guatemala

I don't have a lot of time to write this up very formally, but I thought this was a noteworthy article that was forwarded to everybody in SPH by another student.

My question is what is a government to do 70 years after the fact? Obama has apologized for this to the Guatemalan government, but if I remember correctly (I read this a few days ago), there was also a question of possible reparations of some sort. Personally, I don't really see what good it would do. The impression I got was that there were unlikely to be any descendants of these people. In that case, the suffering inflicted can not be undone or assuaged. The horror some may experience now is unlikely to be any higher than you or I might experience reading about this. And with a Guatemalan government complicit in the act at the time, how are the United States any more guilty than they?

What are your thoughts?

Book Review: Polio: An American Story

Title
Polio: An American Story
(Winner of the 2006 Pulitzer Prize in History)

Author
David M. Oshinsky
George Littlefield Professor of American History, Department of History, University of Texas

Publication Date
2005

Publication Information
Oxford University Press; 288 pages