You may be using an older version of the Adobe Flash Player. To enjoy multimedia content on WGBH.org, please click here to upgrade to the latest version of the free Flash player.

The Moral Side of Murder / The Case for Cannibalism
September 13, 2009
Michael Sandel professor, philosophy, Harvard

Lecture One: "The Moral Side of Murder"
If you had to choose between killing one person or five, what would you do? What's the right thing to do? Professor Michael Sandel launches into his lecture series by presenting students with a hypothetical scenario that has the majority of students voting for killing one person in order to save the lives of five others. But then Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums -- each one artfully designed to make the decision increasingly complex. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, Sandel's point is made. The assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

Lecture Two: "The Case for Cannibalism"
Sandel introduces the principles of Utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous 19th century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After 19 days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case leads to a debate among students about the moral validity of the Utilitarian theory of maximizing overall happiness -- often summed up with the slogan "the greatest good for the greatest number".

Culture & Identity | Literature & Philosophy
cannibalism | Harvard | Human Rights | hypothetical scenario | Jeremy Bentham | justice | morality | Sandel | The Right Thing to Do | Corporate Ethics | Higher Education | Philosophy | Law & Criminal Justice
WGBH
Image of Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
Author: Michael J. Sandel
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2009)
Binding: Hardcover, 320 pages
Image of Justice: A Reader
Author:
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (2007)
Binding: Paperback, 432 pages
Image of Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics
Author: Michael J. Sandel
Publisher: Harvard University Press (2006)
Binding: Paperback, 304 pages
Image of Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy
Author: Michael J. Sandel
Publisher: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (1998)
Binding: Paperback, 432 pages
Image of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
Author: Michael J. Sandel
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (1998)
Binding: Paperback, 252 pages
Image of The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering
Author: Michael J. Sandel
Publisher: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (2009)
Binding: Paperback, 176 pages
Login or register to post comments
Posted by LittleNew December 12th, 2009 at 3:22am

I don't think the English guys in that story should be charged as guilty. 'Cause what would Charging them guilty accomplish? Apparently, we couldn't prevent them or someone else from doing things like they already did in the similar circumstances, and we can't bring the poor boy back alive by charging them guilty. So what's the penaltyfor? Just satisfy our moral consciences? Is this satisfying thing moral?

Law in this case, or in all cases, is to keep the society in order, and by penalizing the criminals prevents crimes from happening again. Though there are still crimes, but it works in most of time, and in this Englishman's case, it won't work at all. So besides satisfying our so-called moral consciences, what would it accomplish?

Posted by cluetrain November 19th, 2009 at 9:18pm

[00:07:52] Finally, the question of the distinction between "killing" and "murder", which changes the moral dilemma.

Posted by Shantonu October 15th, 2009 at 6:37pm

I'm not sure that morality is based on truth in the sense that you mean. The philosophical technique assumes that we have an instinct or an intuition about what we would say is moral under a given hypothetical. Then we pose different puzzles and thought-experiments to tease out and clarify those intuitions. We have an intuition that it's better to allow 1 person to die than to allow 5 people to die. Okay, now what sorts of situations create problems for that intuition. Under what circumstances does that intuition begin to break down. The philosopher assumes that there are ethical commonalities and then tests the limits of those.

Thus, in one sense there isn't any Truth in the large sense. On the other hand there are ways we can talk to each other and reason with each other such that it is not just a matter of opinion. We can arrive at some provisional truths through this method.

Posted by ahfbemail October 6th, 2009 at 9:36am

Based upon the reasoning given in this lecture, murder would be justifiable if basing one's morals on Bentham's axiom related to the good/happiness of the majority. The main question I see arising is this: What is the basis of morality? or truth? No consensus can be reached without a standard of morality/truth agreed upon by all in the discussion.
If morality is based on Bentham's axiom for the common good, then even abortion is justifiable if it furthers the happiness of the majority (both parents?).
For those who argue categorically against the murder/cannibalism, what do you base your morality on? How do you know it's good or bad if that's just what you think? Doesn't morality have to be based upon truth? So where does one find truth?
I am happy to discuss these thoughts and I offer these comments with all due respect.

Posted by Shantonu October 15th, 2009 at 6:59pm

In addition, a lot of what the philospher in the video did was largely assume ethics. Thus, if one thinks that it's more morally good to save five peoples' live than to save one person's life, then what are the implications of that.

This does not mean that he has proven, or is even trying to prove, that in fact it is more morally good to save five rather than one. He is just exploring the implications of that intuition.

I myself do not share that intuition. Surely I would save five rather than one in the standard trolley car example, but I don't think that is a matter of morality but rather a matter of expediency and efficieny (that is, if we wanted to really be moral we would find out more about the situation--does the one person have 10 children to support, while the 5 people have no dependents? Well we don't have time for that, so as a matter of expediency we just say 5>1 and flip the switch).

But it might be appropriate to do nothing without being morally blamed because, if you did nothing, you might justify your non-actions by saying that you did not bear the five any ill will but simply could not make a decision like that. Some people might pray for a miracle or look on in horror and pity at the five that are going to die. I might think this to be very foolish--I personally don't believe in the power of prayer--but I would not say that it was immoral to do nothing. It was perhaps not very efficient, and definitely stupid, but not immoral.

However, if one has the intuition about saving the five over saving the one, what are the implications of that? That's all the lecturer was doing.