Episode 1 - THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER

Moral Reasoning

 Consequentialist- locates morality in the consequences of an act. Eg- going to the side
track to kill 1 worker rather than 5.
 Categorical- locates morality in the certain duties and rights. Eg- pushing fat man over
the bridge to save 5 workers from trolley car.

Consequentialist Moral Reasoning:

Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham): -

The right thing to do is to maximise utility. Utility means balance of pleasure over pain and
happiness over suffering. We are governed by pleasure and pain, we like pleasure and dislike
pain. So we should base morality whether we are thinking if what to do in our own lives or
whether as legislators or citizens we are thinking about what the law should be, the right thing to
do individually of collectively is to maximize, act in a way that maximizes the overall level of
happiness.

Case- Queen v Dudley & Stephens

Facts- 4 person on a boat. Boat got struck by wave and got destroyed. 4 of them escaped on a life
boat. The life boat had only 2 cans of turnip. The food got over. The captain suggested lottery to
kill one to feed the three, one of them rejected. Parker the cabin boy drank sea water and got ill.
Dudley went to Stephens and told him the idea to kill the cabin boy as he will die soon and he
has no family of dependant. They killed him with pen knife and survived till 24th day on his
blood and flesh. On 24th day a german ship rescued them and dropped them to England where
they were tried for murder of Parker.

Defences- Necessity, dire circumstance and and numbers of lives matter and the wider effects
like their families and their dependants back home.

Prosecution- Categorically wrong as murder is murder even if it increases overall happiness, No

consent of cabin boy, Cannibalism is morally wrong, no lottery no fair cprocedure.

Questions Raised-
 Do we have certain fundamental rights?
 Does a fair procedure justify any result?
 What is the moral work of consent?

Reading Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill- Utilitarian Philosophers

Episode 2 - PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE

Case- Ford Pinto case.

Facts- Ford Pinto car had fuel tank at the back. The fuel tank was very vulnerable and got
exploded in rear collisions. Some people were killed and some severely injured. Victims of these
injuries took Ford to court to sue and in the court case it turned out that Ford had long know
about the problem with the fuel tank. The company had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine
whether it would be worth it to put in a special shield to protect the fuel tank. Cost for repairing-
$11pp*12.5M cars=$137M. Benefits- 180 deaths*$200,000+180 injuries*$67,000+2000
vechicles*$700=$49.5M.
This analysis came out in trial, it appalled the jurors who awarded huge settlement.

Arguments in favour of cost-benefit analysis- If this is not used by Ford or other companies then
they will go out of business making people not able to use their or go to job or put food on table
for their families, so it is for greater good.

Arguments against of cost-benefit analysis- You can't assign a monetary value to a human life.

OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARIANISM

· Fails to respect individual/minority rights.

· Not possible to aggregate all values and preferences.
-Using a single measure like $
-Isn't there a distinction between higher and lower pleasures?

"The quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry"

-Jeremy Bentham

Benthamites might argue that it is not possible to make a distinction between pleasures of
different people. Some like madonna and some like mozart but it is hard to tell who's pleasure is
more valuable, higher, nobler etc.

REPLY TO OBJECTIONS TO UTILITARIANISM by JOHN STUART MILL

"The sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable is that people actually do
desire it"
-John Stuart Mill

Mill tried to humanize utilitarianism. He tried to see whether utilitarian calculus could be
enlarged and modified and accomodate humanitarian concerns like the concern to respect
individual rights and also to address the distinction between higher and lower pleasures.

To measure higher pleasure the only test is whether someone has experienced both would prefer
it.

"Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or almost all who have experience of both give a
decided preference, irrespective of any feeling or moral obligation to prefer it, then that is the
more desirable pleasure"
-John Stuart Mill

"It is better to be human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. Better to be Socrates dissastisfied
tham a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig are of a different opinion, it is because they only
know their side of the question"
-John Stuart Mill

" While I dispute the pretensions of any theory which sets up a imaginary standard of justice not
grounded on utility, I account the justice which grounded in utility to be the chief part, and
incomparably the most sacred and binding part, of all morality..."
-John Stuart Mill

"Justice is a name for certain moral requirements, which , regarded collectively, stand higher in
the scale of social utility and are therefore of more paramount obligation than any others."
-John Stuart Mill

Episode 3 – FREE TO CHOOSE