This Week in Justice...

What is the purpose of Moral Reasoning? FM thought it was “just” that the reasoning, moral or not, of those brave enough to speak up in Sandel’s lecture be published for our devoted followers.



He’s just a little “squeamish:”

“Despite the fact that logically you should push the fat man and kill one to save five, I’m so personally squeamish about killing other people that I couldn’t force myself to push a man into sudden death.”



Destined for MR22 Greatness:

Sandel (in discussing whether it is moral to turn a train to kill one person as opposed to running into five): “Why would you not turn?”

Student (raising hands in triumphant air punch): “Because you’re not supposed to mess with destiny.”



Do not go to this guy after he graduates from medical school:

Sandel: “Now consider a second case: This time you’re a doctor and transplant surgeon. You have five patients each in desperate need of an organ to survive. One needs a heart, one a lung, one a liver, one a kidney, and the fifth a pancreas. But you have no organs and you’re about to see them die, until suddenly you remember that in the next room there’s a healthy guy who came in for a checkup, and he’s taking a nap. And you could go in and yank out the five organs you need. He would die, but you would save the five. Numbers count! Five versus one! How many would do that? Anybody? I don’t see a single hand! There is one there! Would you really? Alright...”

Albert: “Well just starting off this is an extremely unrealistic circumstance...but if this is extremely idealized then yes...it is five versus one and...I never really bought into this whole destiny thing…”

Sandel: “Well there could be other contingencies, I’ll grant you that. But you would yank, killing one to save five?”

Albert: “As the question is presented.”