Justice with Michel Sandel

arbiter with Michel Sandel genus Silvia Molina University of Texas at El Paso justice with Michel Sandel Harvard university professor Dr. Michel Sandel gains two criminate episodes that discuss a come up of philosophy related issues. In the first episode The Moral Principles Dr. Sandel begins the public lecture with a apologue of a aerial tramway cart in a cart track that may lead kill bingle, or louver large number. The decision to kill the star mortal in oppose to tail fin, is leftfield to a show of hands by eccentricicipating students. The theoretical scenario he paints in the story is to premise good think.The students then(prenominal) relegateicipate in a critical thinking discussion to conclude what would be object lessonity correct, whether to kill the one person so that five should live or vise versa. His story quickly unfolds to introduce two moral conventions, one existence consequentialist moral think and the staboohward is unconditional mora l reasoning. In the second part of his first lecture, Dr. Sandel discusses a very general nineteenth century law slip involving an ocean stranded crew of four. Sandel recurrence to initiate the discussion of the principles of functional philosopher, Jeremy Bentham.The spring of argu name forcets of utilitarianism follows what is discussed in the second episode dis slur a Price Tag on Life/How to Measure Pleasure. The lecture in episode two to a fault includes discussions of critical thinking and arguments by the students to tide over their contrasting prognosiss. Part one of the second episode discusses the personify acquire compend that companies follow to put a price on benevolentity vitality. The second part in episode two introduces British philosopher John Stuart Mill who argues that utilitarian, those who have see high pleasure and write down pleasures entrust desire the higher pleasure.Utilitarianism is further debated in the lectures of Dr. Sandel as he go es in to detail showing how utilitarianism plays a large reference in every daytimelight feel pile as get by up as in economic situations. The Moral Principal inst every(prenominal)ment part one opens up with Michel Sandel sh atomic number 18-out a story about a trolley cart. The story is as follows, a trolley cart is on a deadly path headed to the fatal go under that ordain kill five people. The bike on the trolley cart whole caboodle and jackpot be steered to kill tho one person. The students are asked their educated opinions on what is the right thing to do precondition the circumstances of the story.Most students answered saving five tender lives with the expense of one human life would be the right thing to do. When the story is changed by Dr. Sandel and the human that is to save the lives of the five others is murdered the students opinions change. Sandel then proceeds to introduce the two moral principles that take place which are cosequentialist and categoric al. Consequential moral reasoning is one that locates morality in the consequences of an act. unconditioned locates morality in certain duties and rights. some(prenominal)(prenominal) these moral principals where greatly debated by the students. On the second part Dr.Sandel gives a shortened introduction to utilitarianism and the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. It describes Benthams view on the balance of pleasure over pain and the belief of the happiness or soundly macrocosm of the great number. The documentary life display case presented, describes four sailors that dwell after a massive ruin and are now fighting for endurance at sea. hotshot of the four sailors gets wild and the others decide to kill him to feed of his body. One of the students essentialers the idea of female genital organnibalism in the case of unavoidableness mor exclusivelyy slander and that it should non confirm murder even though it would pass the rest of the trey crew men alive.A nother student defended the oppose view, by motto that as humans in a situation like such we got to do what we have to do to survive. another(prenominal) circumstances are debated and the positions of the students change to be mor entirelyy ok to have eaten the quarter member of the crew to keep the great good for the greater number. In the opposing view some students still take that it is mor entirelyy wrong to not assess human life as every bit as the weaker sailor. The thoughts of this very famous case are the debates of categorical morality and of Benthams idea of the greater good for the greater number.Michel Sandel opens the second episode with a brief history on philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Benthams views on utilitarianism is that the highest principal of morality whether individualised or political it is to maximize the general upbeat or usefulness. Bentham states that we are all governed by pain and pleasure and must find a balance to achieve the greater good for t he greatest number. Maximized advantage is trounce attained when all the wellbeings are added up and all the hails are subtracted and the go forth is that happiness is greater than suffering. Dr. Sandel describes utilitarian logic as a fiscal value benefit compendium that m whatever weeds as well as overnments use to give bank bill to human life usually in a financial figure. A embody analysis example is based on a proposal to increase gross sales tax income to cigarette sales in the Czech Republic. The analysis concludes that the Czech organization benefits more from smokers. The cost analysis conducted states that the benefits of sess are greater because smoking increases tax revenue, increases health care savings when people die early, and no more pension off payments to those elderly that die early. therefrom the only when cost would be an increase health care, which in this case does not preponderate the benefits of smoking.In a way the analysis are giving a monetary protect to human life. Another view berth by Dr. Sandel, is the Pinto case where a cost analysis was conducted to see if the benefits of adding a overprotective plate to the car were lower than the costs of human lives affected by not adding a protective plate to the provide tank of the Pinto car. In argument, the utilitarian principle is discussed by some students that those lives and opinions of the minority should not be less(prenominal) valuable than those of the majority. many students believe that no monetary shelter should be placed on human lives.In other circumstances the students think person has to make those decisions to be able to adequately take risks in certain situations. The monetary value that is placed on a human life by conducting cost analysis is done for the well being of the greater good to conclude into fashioning important decisions by companies as well as governments. The second part in episode two Dr. Sandel mentions a personal experience that raises the question if all value stack be turned into utilitarian terms. The objection to transform all set in to a single akin measure such as utilitarian is objected by John Steward Mill.Mill believed that utilitarianism stomach be aligned with defending human rights. Mill besides reasons that utilitarianism can cross off higher pleasures from lower pleasures. The distinction of the lower and higher pleasure can be distinguished by having experienced both pleasures and one who has experienced both will choose the higher pleasure always. Dr. Sandel proves his touch by showing the class three videos in which they must choose one that can be described as the higher pleasure. After the viewing all three videos which were a clip by Hamlet, the other by fear factor, and ultimately The Simpsons.The class greatly agrees that the majority would dispel the highest pleasure to be the clip by Hamlet and that Shakespeare is the highest pleasure out of all three. Exploring furthe r the idea of utilitarianism a series of hypothetical moral reasoning situations can occur in the brother cities of El Paso, TX and Juarez, MX. The do drugs war happening in the city of Juarez is crucially affecting a developing economy that participates in the NFATA condescension agreement. Large corporations have positioned its manufacturing plants to operate in the city of Juarez.With Juarez and El Paso trading goods and notes coarsely among countries raises the idea of the following hypothetical scenario. In this hypothetical scenario involves a passkey chief executive officer of a major corporation residing in Juarez. The CEO of the corporation lives in El Paso and has to cross the international beach to Juarez to be able to attend work on a daily basis. unhappily on any given day the CEO finds himself kidnapped by one of the drug cartels that are at war in Juarez. The drug cartel is asking for five one million million million bucks in interchange for the CEO of the come with.Therefore the accompany is suffering 10 million in losses a day without its CEO leader that conducts all major profitable operations run by him in the company. This scenario brings up the use of cost benefit analysis or utility discussed by Bentham. What would the company do in this situation? What is greater good for the greatest number is the question that should be asked? Would it be worth it to the company to pay the ransom money or would the death of the CEO expiration in greater profit of relate to the company. This example shows how a cost benefit analysis that can be conducted by the company in which it gives a monetary value to human life.It can be argued that there are other moral benefits to saving the CEO not on the button for the company but maybe because his family require him. In a way it can also be argued that it is morally wrong to put a price on human life and that no consider what the company should pay a ransom no matter the amount. It can also be said that the CEO can easily be replaced in less than half a day and that the company could save its 10 million dollar losses for the day. Whatever the decision in the hypothetical scenario might turn out to be, the idea of cost benefit analysis is one that is used by all companies and business around the world.One, especially in business must sometimes come across difficult decisions and it is then when all theories moral reasoning and utilitarian must be applied to come to a conclusion. In sum, the discussion of the two episodes concludes that utility is applied to most certainly arbiter but to everyday decisions that are do by businesses around the world. Utilitarianism is referred by Bentham as the greater good for the greatest number in episode one of justness with Michel Sandel.Last but not least in episode two, John Stuart Mill defends the apprehension of human rights in these words umpire is a name for certain moral requirements, which, regarded collectively, stand h igher in the correspond of social utility and are and then of more paramount obligation than any others. This quote, Mill says that it is ok to keep the laws and rules that exist only if there is a a great deal greater reason for breaking them. Therefore utilitarians reason could be that saving a human life is a better reason in comparison to the loss of millions of dollars a company could sustain.Mill and Bentham dispute significantly ideas and create extensive room to ponder, but it is in our reasoning that these ideas can be concluded and construe only by ones own moral reasoning. References circumstance 01 arbiter with Michael Sandel. (n. d. ). Justice with Michael Sandel Online Harvard Course Exploring Justice, Equality, Democracy, and Citizenship. Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http//www. justiceharvard. org/2011/03/episode-01/ respect Episode 02 Justice with Michael Sandel. (n. d. ). Justice with Michael Sandel Online Harvard Course Exploring Justice, Equality, Democ racy, and Citizenship.Retrieved June 12, 2012, from http//www. justiceharvard. org/2011/02/episode-two/watch Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780) Justice with Michael Sandel. (n. d. ). Justice with Michael Sandel Online Harvard Course Exploring Justice, Equality, Democracy, and Citizenship. Retrieved June 13, 2012, from http//www. justiceharvard. org/resources/jeremy-bentham-principles-of-morals-and-legislation-1780/ The Queen vs Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The Lifeboat Case) Justice with Michael Sandel. (n. d. ). Justice with Michael