“Would you pull the lever, yes or no?”
Professor Graham Whitaker let the question hang over the packed lecture hall at Northbridge College. It was the first day of Justice 101, and students had come expecting an easy elective—something they could half-listen to while scrolling. Instead, Whitaker stood under harsh fluorescent lights with a piece of chalk and the calm confidence of a man willing to make strangers uncomfortable for a living.
On the screen behind him, a clean diagram: a trolley racing toward five workers. A lever could divert it to a side track with one worker. Whitaker didn’t ask for feelings. He asked for a decision.
A hand shot up. Leah Bennett, pre-law, answered fast. “Yes. One death instead of five.”
Another voice cut in. Owen Ramirez, engineering, frowned. “But pulling the lever makes you responsible.”
Whitaker nodded like he was collecting evidence. “Good. Now let’s move from choosing to redirect harm… to choosing to cause it.”
The slide changed: a footbridge over the track. A large man stood beside you; pushing him would stop the trolley, saving five. The room reacted instantly—laughter, groans, protests.
“That’s murder,” someone snapped.
“But it saves five,” Leah fired back.
Whitaker pointed at the class. “Same numbers. Different instincts. Why?”
Students argued. Some reached for arithmetic—minimize deaths. Others reached for boundaries—never use a person as a tool. Whitaker didn’t rescue them with a conclusion. He tightened the knot.
Then he turned off the projector and wrote two words on the board: OUTCOMES and DUTY.
“This course,” he said, “is about justice, not comfort. Your moral instincts will clash. That clash matters.”
He pivoted from the trolley to the real world. “You’ve heard people say, ‘I had no choice,’” he continued. “Courts hear that too.” He paused. “But do they accept it?”
Whitaker handed out a one-page case summary—names, dates, a shipwreck, and a decision that still made people argue more than a century later. A few students scanned the page and went quiet.
“Four survivors,” Whitaker said. “No food. No water. A teenage cabin boy too weak to resist. A choice made in ‘necessity.’ A killing. And then… trial.”
The lecture hall felt colder. No more stick figures. No more hypothetical workers drawn in black lines.
Whitaker walked down the aisle slowly, stopping near the front row. “Some of you will say, ‘It was survival.’ Others will say, ‘It was murder.’ The law—at least in that case—said necessity was not a defense.”
Owen’s jaw tightened. Leah’s eyes narrowed, less certain than before.
Whitaker returned to the board and wrote two names in block letters: BENTHAM and KANT.
“Bentham,” he said, tapping the first name, “asks what produces the greatest good. Kant,” he tapped the second, “asks what we must never do—no matter the outcome.”
He looked over the class. “By the end of this course, you won’t just know their arguments. You’ll feel what they demand from you.”
A student near the back raised a hand. “So which one is right?”
Whitaker smiled once, not kindly. “Next week, you’re going to argue your answer like your freedom depends on it.”
The room buzzed with uneasy laughter.
“Because someday,” Whitaker added, “your job may put you in a position where a decision is irreversible—and your reasoning is all you have left.”
As students packed their bags, Owen stayed seated, staring at the case handout. Leah folded hers carefully, like it could bite. Whitaker erased the board slowly, leaving only one question written in the corner.
When ‘necessity’ feels real, what does justice require?
Part 2
The second lecture began with a warning. “If you’re here to collect opinions,” Whitaker said, “you’re in the wrong room. I’m not interested in what you feel. I’m interested in what you can justify.”
He wrote a short phrase across the board: “What’s the moral difference?”
Then he returned to the trolley. “Why does pulling a lever feel different from pushing a person?” he asked. “If you say ‘intent,’ define it. If you say ‘means versus side effects,’ defend it.”
Leah stood and tried. “Pushing uses someone as a tool,” she said. “The lever doesn’t.”
Whitaker nodded. “That’s close to a Kantian insight—treating persons as ends, not means.” He turned toward Owen. “What’s your view?”
Owen hesitated. “I still think outcomes matter,” he said. “But… responsibility changes when you act.”
Whitaker wrote RESPONSIBILITY on the board and circled it. “Now we’re getting somewhere.”
He introduced Jeremy Bentham as a man who wanted moral thinking to be practical—almost mechanical. “Bentham says we should maximize well-being,” Whitaker explained. “The right action is the one that produces the greatest overall happiness and least suffering.”
A business major in the front row nodded approvingly. “That’s simple.”
Whitaker leaned forward. “Simple is not the same as easy.” He offered a policy case: limited funds, one program saves a few with rare diseases, another saves thousands with vaccines. “Utilitarian logic,” he said, “often forces you to abandon the few.”
The room stiffened. Leah looked down. Someone whispered, “That’s horrible.”
Whitaker didn’t soften it. “It’s also how budgets work.”
Then he introduced Immanuel Kant, who refused to let human dignity be traded like currency. “Kant says there are categorical duties,” Whitaker explained. “Rules that hold regardless of outcomes—because people aren’t objects. You cannot treat a person as a mere means.”
Leah brightened. “So Kant solves it.”
Whitaker tilted his head. “Does he?” He offered a new dilemma: a murderer asks you where your friend is hiding. If you lie, you save a life. If you tell the truth, your duty not to lie remains intact—but someone dies.
Leah frowned again. Owen exhaled sharply. The class realized no theory came without a cost.
When Whitaker returned to the shipwreck case, he didn’t dramatize it. He read facts: days adrift, starvation, the boy’s weakness, the killing, and the court’s refusal to accept necessity as a defense. “The court feared,” Whitaker said, “that once you allow necessity to justify murder, people will call their selfish impulses ‘necessary’ too.”
He assigned a brutal exercise: “Write a defense of the survivors’ decision. Then write the prosecution argument that condemns it. If you can’t argue both, you don’t understand the problem.”
Leah spent the week writing late into the night, remembering her aunt’s hospital bills and the brutal arithmetic of care. Owen wrote too, thinking about how engineers design safety systems precisely because humans make desperate choices under pressure.
On Friday, Whitaker staged a mock hearing. Leah argued for necessity—survival logic, human desperation, the impossibility of perfect morality in chaos. Owen argued for the prosecution—rights, dignity, the danger of setting a precedent where killing becomes “reasonable.”
A quiet student acting as judge asked the question that sliced through both arguments. “If necessity excuses murder,” she said, “who decides whose life becomes the sacrifice?”
No one answered quickly. That was the point.
After class, Whitaker stopped Leah and Owen at the door. “You’re both learning,” he said. “Not because you’re right. Because you’re uncomfortable.”
Leah swallowed. “Professor… what do you believe?”
Whitaker’s eyes held steady. “I believe justice begins when you stop lying to yourself about what your beliefs demand.”
And as they walked into the hallway, Leah realized something unsettling: the course wasn’t about a trolley or a lifeboat.
It was about what kind of person you become when the world forces you to choose.
Part 3
By the middle of the semester, the lecture hall had changed. The jokes stopped. The lazy certainty disappeared. Students still disagreed, but now they spoke carefully, as if words carried consequences. Whitaker had done something rare: he’d made moral philosophy feel like real life.
He moved beyond the classic dilemmas into public controversies—punishment, inequality, consent, and the role of government. He kept returning to the same tension: outcomes versus duty, welfare versus rights, efficiency versus dignity. Every issue became a mirror.
Leah’s confidence evolved into something tougher: humility. She stopped arguing like she was trying to win court and started arguing like she was trying to be honest. In one discussion on sentencing, she admitted, “I used to think harsh punishment was always justified if it reduced crime. Now I’m not sure I can accept what that does to human dignity.”
Owen changed too. He’d come in believing moral reasoning should work like engineering—inputs and outputs. But after weeks of debate, he began to see the danger of treating people like variables. “I still care about results,” he said one day, “but I’m scared of the kind of world we build if we only care about results.”
Whitaker didn’t celebrate their growth with applause. He made it harder.
For the final assignment, he gave them a “Governor’s Memo.” A fictional state faced a crisis: rising violence, public panic, pressure for immediate action. The governor could choose a sweeping policy that would reduce harm quickly but violate civil liberties—or a slower reform that protected rights but might cost lives in the short term. Students had to pick, defend, anticipate objections, and accept the moral residue of their decision.
When Leah wrote her memo, she felt her own hands sweat. She pictured headlines, angry parents, grieving families, prisoners, police, judges—faces instead of statistics. She wrote, erased, and wrote again until her reasoning sounded like a person, not a slogan.
Owen’s memo wrestled openly with tradeoffs. He didn’t hide behind certainty. He wrote, “Any policy that saves lives but normalizes injustice will eventually cost lives in a different form.”
On the last day, Whitaker asked them to read one sentence aloud—the line they would stand by even if it made them unpopular at a dinner table, in a courtroom, or at the ballot box.
A student who rarely spoke read first: “If we let ‘necessity’ define right and wrong, we will excuse cruelty whenever it benefits us.”
Leah read her sentence next, voice shaking: “If we protect people in theory but ignore suffering in practice, we aren’t choosing justice—we’re choosing comfort.”
Owen read last: “If we treat dignity as negotiable, we will one day discover it has been sold without our permission.”
Whitaker listened with his arms folded, then nodded once. “That,” he said, “is moral seriousness. Not certainty. Not virtue-signaling. Seriousness.”
As students left, Leah and Owen stood outside in cold sunlight, both quieter than they’d been on day one. Leah asked, half-smiling, “Would you pull the lever now?”
Owen exhaled. “I don’t know,” he said. “But now I can explain why I don’t know.”
Leah nodded. “Same.”
They walked away with no clean answers, but with a better kind of equipment: the ability to reason under pressure, to hear the other side, and to admit the cost of their choices.
If this story made you think, drop a comment with your toughest moral dilemma, and share it with a friend today.
