Welcome to Iowa Public Television! If you are seeing this message, you are using a browser that does not support web standards. This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device. Read more on our technical tips page.

Iowa Public Television

 

Home » Video » Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 07: "A LESSON IN...

<p><strong>Note:</strong> If this video does not play, you may need to download the free <a href="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer">Flash</a> video plugin for your web browser.</p> <p><a href="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" target="_blank"><img alt="Get Adobe Flash Player" src="graphics/plugins/get_flash_player.gif" border="0" height="31" width="88"></a></p>
  • Justice: What's The Right Thing to Do?

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 07: "A LESSON IN LYING" | PBS

Duration: 55:05 (Full Program)
Program: Justice: What's The Right Thing to Do? #107

PART ONE: A LESSON IN LYING

Immanuel Kant's stringent theory of morality allows for no exceptions. Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of ones own dignity. Professor Sandel asks students to test Kant's theory with this hypothetical case: if your friend were hiding inside your home, and a person intent on killing your friend came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to tell a lie? If so, would it be moral to try to mislead the murderer without actually lying? This leads to a discussion of the morality of misleading truths.

Sandel wraps up the lecture with a video clip of one of the most famous, recent examples of dodging the truth: President Clinton talking about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

PART TWO: A DEAL IS A DEAL

Sandel introduces the modern philosopher John Rawls and his theory of a hypothetical social contract. Rawls argues that principles of justice are the outcome of a special kind of agreement. They are the principles we would all agree to if we had to choose rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power.

According to Rawls, the only way to ensure that no one has more power than anyone else is to imagine a scenario where no one knows his or her age, sex, race, intelligence, strength, social position, family wealth, religion, or even his or her goals in life. Rawls calls this hypothetical situation a veil of ignorance. What principles would we agree to behind this veil of ignorance?

Tags:

Topics:

Post Date: September 4, 2009