The lecture opens with a simple setup: a trolley is speeding toward five workers.
You can divert it onto a side track where one worker will die instead.
Most people choose to turn the trolley—because saving five feels better than saving one.
Then the professor flips the scenario: you’re on a bridge, and the only way to stop the trolley is to push a large man onto the tracks, killing him—but saving five.
Suddenly, most people refuse.
Same math. Different feeling.
That’s the point: our moral judgments aren’t driven by numbers alone. Something about directly using a person as a tool triggers a different moral alarm.
PART 2
Next, the lecture turns from hypotheticals to a true legal case: Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.
Shipwrecked sailors, starving and desperate, kill the cabin boy Richard Parker to survive. They argue necessity: “We had to.”
The moral fight erupts:
-
If morality is about outcomes, saving three lives by sacrificing one can look “reasonable.”
-
If some acts are categorically wrong, then murder stays wrong, even in desperation.
The class debate gets sharper around two ideas:
-
Consent: Would it change things if Parker agreed?
-
Fair procedure: Would a lottery make it morally cleaner?
The lecture’s punch is that “fairness” and “permission” matter—but may not be enough if you believe certain acts are wrong no matter what.
PART 3
The course frames everything as a clash between two styles of moral reasoning:
-
Consequentialism / Utilitarianism (Bentham, Mill): judge actions by outcomes—maximize welfare, happiness, lives saved.
-
Categorical moral reasoning (Kant): some actions violate duties/rights—people must never be treated merely as means.
The trolley and transplant cases show the tension clearly:
-
Saving five feels right… until saving five requires killing an innocent on purpose.
-
That’s where concepts like rights, dignity, consent, and justice start overpowering raw arithmetic.
The lecture ends by warning: philosophy isn’t comfortable. It forces you to ask questions you can’t “un-ask.”
Quick Study Takeaways (1-minute review)
-
Why we “switch” between trolley cases: outcome-math vs. moral limits on how harm is done.
-
Why transplant feels worse: killing an innocent as a tool violates a strong “do not use people” intuition.
-
Why Dudley & Stephens matters: it’s not a puzzle—real law had to choose between necessity and moral limits.
-
The
