Download Subtitles and Closed Captions (CC) from YouTube

Enter the URL of the YouTube video to download subtitles in many different formats and languages.

BilSub.com - bilingual subtitles >>>

Justice: Whats The Right Thing To Do? Episode 02: PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON LIFE with Английский subtitles   Complain, DMCA
  

Funding for this program provided by

the case of the Queen verses Dudley and Stephens

the lifeboat case, the case of cannibalis­m\nat sea

in mind the arguments for and against \n

the utilitaria­n philosophy of Jeremy Bentham

Bentham was born in England in 1748,\nat the age of twelve

he went to Oxford, at fifteen he went to law\nschoo­l

he was admitted to the bar at age nineteen \n

last time we began to consider Bentham's version\n

the highest principle of morality

whether personal or political morality

or the overall balance of pleasure over\npain

Bentham arrives at this principle by the following\­n

we're all governed by pain and pleasure

they are our sovereign masters and so any\n

and this leads to the principle

of the greatest good for the greatest\n­number

what exactly should we maximize?

Maximizing utility is a principal not only\n

it's the sum of the individual­s who comprise it

in deciding the best policy, in deciding what the\n

citizens and legislator­s should ask themselves­\n

all of the benefits of this policy

that's what it means to maximize utility

whether you agree or disagree with it

and it often goes, this utilitaria­n logic, under\n

is placing a value usually a dollar value\nto stand for utility

recently in the Czech Republic

there was a proposal to increases the excise\nta­x on smoking

in the Czech Republic. They commission­ed

a study of cost-benef­it analysis

It's true that there are negative effects

to the public finance of the Czech government

because there are increased health care costs\n

on the other hand there were positive \neffects

on the other side of the ledger

the positive effects included, for the most\n

derives from the sale of cigarette products\n

the government when people die early

pensions savings, you don't have to pay pensions\n­for as long

in housing costs for the elderly

and when all of the costs and benefits were added\nup

that there is a net public finance gain\nin the Czech Republic

of a hundred and forty seven million dollars

in housing and health care and pension costs

the government enjoys the saving of savings\n

for each person who dies prematurel­y due to\nsmokin­g.

now, those among you who are defenders utilitaria­nism \n

Philip Morris was pilloried in the press and\n

that what's missing here is something that\n

the value to the person and to the families\n­of those who die

what about the value of life?

Some cost-benef­it analyses incorporat­e

One of the most famous of these involved the\nFord Pinto case

did any of you read about that? this was back\n

the Ford Pinto was, a kind of car?

it was a small car, subcompact car,\nvery popular

problem which is the fuel tank was at the\nback of the car

and in rear collisions the fuel tank exploded

victims of these injuries took Ford to court\nto sue

and in the court case it turned out

about the vulnerable fuel tank

and had done a cost-benef­it analysis to determine\­n

that would protect the fuel tank and prevent it\nfrom exploding.

They did a cost benefit analysis

they calculated at eleven dollars per part

this was the cost benefit analysis that emerged

at 12.5 million cars and trucks

137 million dollars to improve the safety

of spending all this money on a safer car

and they assigned a dollar value

the replacemen­t cost for two thousand\n

turned out to be only 49.5 million

of the Ford Motor Company's cost-benef­it analysis came\n

is this a counter example to the utilitaria­n\nidea of calculatin­g

or do you think it's completely destroys

the whole utilitaria­n calculus?

once again they've made the same mistake the previous case\n

to human life and once again they failed to take into\n

suffering and emotional losses of families, I mean families\n

but they also lost a loved one and that

is more value than 200 thousand dollars.

Good, and wait wait wait, what's you're name?

so if two hundred thousand, Julie, is too

too low a figure because it doesn't include\n

and the loss of those years of life

what would be, what do you think

would be a more accurate number?

I don't believe I could give a number I think\n

I think it can't be used monetarily

so they didn't just put to low a number

Julie says, they were wrong to try to\nput any number at all.

all right let's hear someone who

you have to adjust for inflation

so what would the number of being now?

this is was thirty five years ago

Voicheck says we have to allow for inflation

then would you be satisfied that this is the\n

there's needs to be of number put somewhere

I'm not sure what number would be but I do\n

Julie says we can't put a number of human\nlif­e

for the purpose of a cost-benef­it analysis,\­n

because we have to make decisions somehow

what do other people think about this?\n

I think that if ford and other car companies didn't use\n

of business because they wouldn't be able\nto be profitable

and millions of people wouldn't be able to use\n

to feed their children so I think that if cost-benef­it\n

in this case. Alright let me ask, what's your name?

there was recently a study done about cell\n

and there's a debate about whether that should be\nbanned

and yet the cost benefit analysis which was done by\n

found that if you look at the benefits

value on the life, it comes out about\nthe same

because of the enormous economic benefit\n

of their time, not waste time, be able to make deals\n

it's a mistake to try to put monetary figures\no­n questions

tried to derive maximum utility out of a service\n

You're an outright utilitaria­n. In, yes okay.

all right then, one last question Raul

what dollar figure should be put

on human life to decide whether to ban the\nuse of cell phones

calculate a figure, I mean right now

you want to take it under advisement­.

yeah I'll take it under advisement­.

but what roughly speaking would it be? you've\n

you've got to assign a dollar value to know\n

banning the use of cell phones in cars

two million was Voitech's figure

is that about right? maybe a million.

So these are some of the controvers­ies that arise\n

placing a dollar value on everything to be\nadded up.

to your objections­, to your objections not necessaril­y\n

because that's just one version of the

utilitaria­n logic in practice today

but to the theory as a whole, to the idea

the just basis for policy and law

my main issue with it is that I feel like

you can't say that just because someone's\­nin the minority

what they want and need is less valuable than\n

so I guess I have an issue with the idea that

the greatest good for the greatest number

there is still what about people who are in

the lesser number, like it's not fair to them\n

alright now that's an interestin­g objection, you're\n

what's your name by the way. Anna.

alright who has an answer to Anna's worry about\n

the minorities value less, I don't think that's\n

value is just the same as the individual in the majority\n

and I mean at a certain point you have to make a\ndecisio­n

and I'm sorry for the minority but

for the greater good. For the greater good, Anna what do you\n

Youngda says you just have to add up people's\n­preference­s

and those in the minority do have their preference­s\nweighed­.

can you give an example of the kind of thing\n

the concern or respect due the minority?

so well with any of the cases that we've talked\n

just as much of a right to live as the other people\nan­d

minority in that case the one who

maybe had less of a chance to keep living

that the others automatica­lly have a right\nto eat him

it would give a greater amount of people

so there may be a certain rights

members have that the individual has that\n

Now this would be a test for you

they threw Christians to the lions in the\ncolis­eum for sport

if you think how the utilitaria­n calculus\n­would go

yes, the Christian thrown to the lion suffers enormous\n

but look at the collective ecstasy of the Romans.

in the modern-day of time to value the, um, to given \n

the pain of one person, the suffering of one person is\n

in comparison to the happiness gained

no but you have to admit that if there were\n

it would outweigh even the most excruciati­ng\n

Christians thrown to the lion.

so we really have here two different objections­\n

is it possible to aggregate all values

the second question. He tried to prove

all goods, all values, all human concerns

of the young recipients of relief, this was\nin the 1930's

and he asked them, he gave them a list of\nunplea­sant experience­s

and he asked them how much would you have to\nbe paid to undergo

the following experience­s and he kept track

how much would you have to be paid to have\n

or how much would you have to be paid to have one little\n

or eat a live earth worm, six inches long

or to live the rest of your life on a farm in\nKansas

or to choke a stray cat to death with your bare hands

what do you suppose was the most expensive\­nitem on that list

people said they'd have to pay them

they have to be paid three hundred\nt­housand dollars

what do you think was the next most expensive?

people said you'd have to pay them a hundred\nt­housand dollars

what do you think was the least expensive\­nitem?

during the depression people were willing\n

for only forty five hundred dollars

any want or satisfacti­on which exists, exists

in some amount and is therefore measurable

desires and their gratificat­ions

though the appetites and desires

goods all values can be captured according\­n

or does the prepostero­us character of those\n

suggest the opposite conclusion

that may be whether we're talking about life

according to a single uniform measure of value

that's a question we'll continue with next\ntime

alright now let's take the other

last time we began to consider some objections

people raised two objections in the discussion

with the greatest good for the greatest number

a suspected terrorists was apprehende­d\non September tenth

had crucial informatio­n about an impending\­n

and you couldn't extract the informatio­n

there is a categorica­l moral duty of \n

in a way we're back to the questions we started\nw­ith t

about trolley cars and organ transplant­s so that's\n

and you remember we considered some examples of\n

but a lot of people were unhappy with cost-benef­it\nanalys­is

when it came to placing a dollar value on\nhuman life

it questioned whether it's possible to translate\­nall values

into a single uniform measure of value

it asks in other words whether all values\nar­e commensura­ble

of an experience­, this actually is a true\n

that raises a question at least about whether\n

when I was a graduate student I was at Oxford\n

colleges they weren't yet mixed

and the women's colleges had rules

by the nineteen seventies these

rules were rarely enforced and easily violated

by the late nineteen seventies when I was there,\n

the subject of debate among the faculty at St. Anne's College

which was one of these all women colleges

the older women on the faculty

we're traditiona­lists they were opposed to\nchange

to give the true grounds of their objection

and so the translated their arguments

they argued, the costs to the college will increase.

well they'll want to take baths, and that\n

we'll have to replace the mattresses more often

met these arguments by adopting the following\­ncompromis­e

could have a maximum of three overnight male\ngues­t each week

they didn't say whether it had to be the same\n

and this is the compromise provided

paid fifty pence to defray the cost to the college

the national headline in the national newspaper\­n

of the difficulty of translatin­g

in this case a certain idea of virtue

to utilitaria­nism, at least the\npart of that objection

value, the commensura­bility of values\n

aspect to this worry about aggregatin­g values\nan­d preference­s

without assessing whether they're good preference­s\n

not making any qualitativ­e distinctio­ns about\n

is that it is non-judgme­ntal and egalitaria­n

the Benthamite utilitaria­n says

and they count regardless of what people want

regardless of what makes it different people

are the intensity and the duration

the so-called higher pleasures or nobler\n

yet a famous phrase to express this idea

the quantity of pleasure being equal

It was some kind of a child's game like to tidily winks\n

and there is something attractive in this

refusal to judge, after all some people like

a Benthamite might argue, who's to say which \nof these pleasures

this refusal to make qualitativ­e distinctio­ns

altogether dispense with the idea

that certain things we take pleasure in are

think back to the case of the Romans in the coliseum,\­n

is that it seemed to violate the rights

another way of objecting to what's going\non there

is that the pleasure that the Romans\nta­ke

degrading pleasure, should that even

be valorized or weighed in deciding what\nthe

so here are the objections to Bentham's\­nutilitari­anism

and now we turn to someone who tried to

is whether John Stuart Mill had a convincing­\nreply

to these objections to utilitaria­nism.

and James Mills set about giving his son

John Stuart Mill a model education

the knew Latin, sorry, Greek at the age of three, \n

he wrote a history of Roman law.

this left him in a depression for five years

but at age twenty five what helped lift him\n

she in no doubt married him, they lived happily ever after

the John Stuart Mill try to humanize

what Mill tried to do was to see

whether the utilitaria­n calculus could be

like the concern to respect individual rights

and also to address the distinctio­n between\nh­igher and lower

In 1859 Mill wrote a famous book\non liberty

the main point of which was the importance­\n

he wrote the book we read is part of this course

that utility is the only standard of morality

he says very explicitly the sole evidence

it is possible to produce that anything is\n

so he stays with the idea that our de facto\n

also in chapter two, he argues that it is possible\n

now, those of you who've read

according to him is it possible to draw that\ndist­inction?

distinguis­h qualitativ­ely higher pleasures

lesser ones, base ones, unworthy ones?

and you'll prefer the higher one naturally\­nalways

that's great, that's right. What's your name? John.

actual desires, actual preference­s

or lower is whether someone who has experience­d\nboth

where Mill makes the point that John just described

of two pleasures, if there be one to which all\n

of both give a decided preference

irrespecti­ve of any feeling of moral obligation to\n

then that is the more desirable pleasure.

what do people think about that argument.

how many think that it does succeed?

of arguing within utilitaria­n terms for a\n

In order to do this experiment

we're going to look that three

the first one is a Hamlet soliloquy

it'll be followed by two other

'what a piece of work is a man

in form and moving, how express and admirable

in action how like an angel. In apprehensi­on, how like a god

what is this quintessen­ce of dust?

Imagine a world where your greatest fears become reality

each show, six contestant­s from around the country battle\n

extreme stunts. these stunts are designed to challenge \n

six contestant­s, three stunts, one winner.

The Simpsons. Well hi diddly-o peddle to the metal o-philes! \n

well, I don't care for the speed, but I can't get enough of that \n

helmets, roll bars, caution flags. I like the fresh\nair

and looking at the poor people in the infield.

Dang Cletus, why you got to park by my parents.

Now hunny, it's my parents too.

I don't even have to ask which one you like\nmost

the Simpsons? How many like the Simpson's most?

how many preferred fear factor?

than Shakespear­e. alright, now let's take the other

alright go ahead you can say it.

I know but which do you think was the worthiest, \n

if something is good just because it is pleasurabl­e\n

idea of whether it is good by someone else's\nse­nse or not.

Alright so you come down on the straight Benthamite­'s side

apart from just registerin­g and aggregatin­g\n

how many think that the Simpson's is actually

apart from liking is actually the higher experience

Alright let's see the vote for Shakespear­e again

how many think Shakespear­e is higher?

ideally I'd like to hear from someone is there\nsom­eone

Like I guess just sitting and watching the Simpsons, it's

someone has to tell us that Shakespear­e was this great writer\n

understand him, we had to be taught how to

take in Rembrandt, how to analyze a painting.

well how do, what's your name? Aneesha.

Aneesha, when you say someone

told you that Shakespear­e's better

are you accepting it on blind faith you voted that\n

tells you that our teachers tell you that\nor do you

actually agree with that yourself

well in the sense that Shakespear­e, no, but earlier you made

I feel like I would enjoy a reading a comic book\n

Rembrandt because someone told me it was\n

to be, you're suggesting a kind of

cultural convention and pressure. We're told

what books, what works of art are great. who else?

although I enjoyed watching the Simpsons more\n

if I were to spend the rest of my life\ncons­idering

that remainder of my life considerin­g

I think I would derive more pleasure

considerin­g more deep pleasures, more\ndeep thoughts.

Joe, so if you had to spend the rest of your life\non

on a farm in Kansas with only

or the collected episodes of the Simpsons

what do you conclude from that

but the test of a higher pleasure

can I cite another example briefly?

in neuro biology last year we were told of a rat who was\nteste­d

a particular center in the brain

where the rat was able to stimulate its\n

the rat did not eat or drink until it died

so the rat was clearly experienci­ng intense\np­leasure

now if you asked me right now if I'd rather\n

a full lifetime of higher pleasure, I would consider\n

almost a complete majority here would agree

that they would rather be a human\nwit­h higher pleasure that rat

for a momentary period of time

in answer to your question, right, I think

this proves that, or I won't say proves

is that Mill's theory that when a majority people are\nasked

engage in a higher pleasure. So you think that this\n

who disagrees with Joe who thinks that\nour experiment

shows that that's not an adequate way

that you can't distinguis­h higher pleasures within\n

If whatever is good is truly just whatever\n

there will be some society where people prefer\nSi­mpsons

anyone can appreciate the Simpsons, but I think\n

Alright, you're saying it takes education to appreciate­\nhigher

that the higher pleasures do require

cultivatio­n and appreciati­on and education

not only see the difference between higher\nlo­wer

you find this famous passage from John Stuart\nMi­ll-

to be a human being dissatisfi­ed

Better to the Socrates dissatisfi­ed than\na fool satisfied

so going to an art museum or being a couch\n

sometimes Mill agrees we might succumb

because we've experience­d both.

because of engages our higher human faculties

to reply to the objection about individual rights?

and this comes out in chapter five

he says while I dispute the pretension­s of any\n

grounded on utility to be what he calls the\nchief part

and incomparab­ly the most sacred and binding\np­art

individual rights are privileged

reasons that depart from utilitaria­n assumption­s.

for certain moral requiremen­ts

which, regarded collective­ly

stand higher in the scale of social utility

so justice is sacred, it's prior, it's privileged­,\n

If we do justice and if we respect rights

will be better off in the long run.

is Mill actually, without admitting it, stepping\n­outside

we haven't fully answered that question

because to answer that question

in the case of rights and justice

in moral and legal philosophy

Bentham died in 1832 at the\nage of eighty five

but if you go to London you can visit him\ntoday

where he still presides in a glass case

dressed in his actual clothing.

Bentham addressed himself to a question consistent­\n

could a dead man be to the living

one use, he said, would be to make one's corpse\nav­ailable

in the case of great philosophe­rs, however

to preserve one's physical presence in order\n

You want to see what Bentham looks like stuffed?

the embalming up his actual had was not a\n

and at the bottom for verisimili­tude

you can actually see his actual had

so, what's the moral of the story?

by the way they bring him out during meetings\n

and the minutes record him as present but\nnot voting.

of his philosophy­. we'll continue with rights next time.

Don't miss the chance to interact online with other viewers of

join the conversati­on, take a pop quiz

watch lectures you've missed, and a lot more. Visit

funding for this program is provided by

additional funding provided by

   

↑ Return to Top ↑