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

 
<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 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER" | PBS

Duration: 54:56 (Full Program)
Program: Justice: What's The Right Thing to Do? #101

PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER

If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do?

That's the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that 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.

PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM

Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive.

The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Tags:

Topics:

Post Date: September 4, 2009