Jean Alric B.

Almira Ethics

BSED – II English Prof. Dexter Villamin

Reflection - Justice with Michael Sandel: The Moral Side of Murder

Murder, will there be a reason that will make it sound right? Mr. Sandel’s lectures

were both about murdering people and possibly utilitarianism. The first was an imagined

case, or a dilemma about trolleys and all. The second one was a real life case, the story

of captain Dudley, his crew and cannibalization. Both were really thought provoking

cases. The whole thing made me think and take sides in the matter but also made me

switch sides because of some convincing arguments that Sandel’s students put forth.

While and after watching the lectures, the following questions formed and remained

inside, I will try to answer said questions through the course of this paper. Is murder

justifiable if there are enough reasons that make it acceptable to hear? Is it better to kill

one for the sake of many or it’s the reverse? Or, is murder just, dead wrong?

The first set of moral dilemma was about a runaway trolley, with you as the

driver, the break is not working. Now there are on the main track, five workers working

on the rails and you and your trolley were going straight for them. Then, you saw a

sidetrack with only one worker, let us remove their ability to get out of the way, will you

squish the lone man or will you go with carnage and kill the five? My take on this is that,

I will kill the lone man, a very generic answer but it’s more preferable to think that I have

been a killer of one instead of five. We’ve been doing that thing since the ancient times,

sacrificing a single maiden here to appease the gods and all, and those kinds of things.

Minimize the casualties; that may be mankind’s mantra. But the second and third
variation of the dilemma the one that involves you, or me being a bystander and a

heavy guy and his pushing off the bridge to stop the trolley, was or yanked out a

different answer for me. I wouldn’t push the chap off the bridge or make him fall through

the trap door. This is because, he was too innocent and him and I were not directly

involved with the crisis at hand, we’re merely spectators who need not have bloody

hands just to stop the crash. I am not a modern hero who will kill just to save when I am

not directly in the situation. Same goes with the dilemma with me being a doctor who

has five patients who need organs and a healthy guy next door. I’m not going to kill the

healthy man for others, of course the deaths that’ll follow will be psychologically

damaging but, I’m not a killer. I save lives; I am a champion of life, I did what I can do

for the five but there are no organs available, better luck for them next time.

Now for the second dilemma, the real life case of the Queen vs. Dudley and

Stephens wherein the cabin boy, Parker was killed and cannibalized. It was justifiable

for me because it was an act done for survival, it was a deed that represents mankind’s

ultimate goal ever since, to survive. Like what a student said something like, ‘You gotta

do what you can to survive.” Then there was the consent question by another, that

would surely exempt Dudley and co. and I was swayed by that, then came another

student, amidst everything who believes that the murder was wrong because it is...

murder. It made me realize and remember that there was a law that says murder is

wrong. I would agree with that, because, whether a thing is right or wrong will entirely

depend on the person. The law is what keeps society intact; lawfully and morally. It

keeps us from personal bias and so I agree with the guy who says that murder is just

wrong.
 One more thing, I wouldn’t judge those who are accused of being without

remorse for the crime that they did just because of a journal entry that sounds so

normal, “we were eating breakfast, etc....” I mean, what would you write there, “and so

while we are performing the gruesome feeding ritual to sustain ourselves, blah blah...”

those kinds of things? That’s a journal; it’s supposed to be some kind of a brief factual

report and therefore it cannot be a basis for a quick assumption about regretting and all.

I would say that the killing that happened is justifiable if there’s the lad’s consent

and that it was done for survival and not with malice. But I’d also say that the black

guy’s argument that murder is murder was really good. I mean, that itself makes the

deed lawfully wrong because there is a law that corresponds to that kind of crime.

Survival-wise, them eating the kid was right, lawfully and morally, I think they’re wrong.

But hey, what happened with the boy and the three was some kind of a utilitarian act,

only savage, happiness for everyone!

In the end, of course killing might be justifiable, as long as it satisfies the

specifications that make it or give it justice. We are too rational to deny the acceptability

of things that are backed up by substantial reasons. Another, the betterness of killing

one for all and all for one depends on who will be killed and the situation, the utilitarian

way sounds nice but it is too wrong to kill someone who is never involved with the

matter. Last, of course murder is wrong in every aspect, lawfully, morally etc..., even if

you have a very noble cause behind it. It is the very same reason that murderers are put

on trial, it doesn’t matter if you killed for revenge, to save the world or whatever. To kill

someone is wrong. It can be justified but still wrong.