Transcript
Speaker: So welcome to the first episode of Coffee Table Conversations, a podcast where we take a dive through the world of philosophy, history, politics, ethics, and more.
Speaker: The podcast is led by me, John, and Diane, two senior or high school students in the United Kingdom.
Speaker: Every fortnight, we will upload a new episode exploring a different theme and issue.
Speaker: Episodes will last only 25 minutes, and we'll explore everything from nepotism to free will.
Speaker: However, for the first episode, we draw upon one of society's most divisive issues.
Speaker: This is, of course, ethics and ethical dilemmas.
Speaker: So ethics is the branch of philosophy which deals with what is right and what is wrong and what is acceptable to do and what isn't.
Speaker: And an ethical dilemma, really, is an issue where people are not sure what to do.
Speaker: There's no clear answer.
Speaker: There's no...
Speaker: definitive right or wrong.
Speaker: So it's a bit of a grey area.
Speaker: Yeah, I guess that's a good way of describing ethics.
Speaker: It's sort of a grey area where it's almost you've got a binary choice.
Speaker: You either side on one side or you agree on the other side.
Speaker: This issue.
Speaker: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: But there's no really right or wrong answer fully.
Speaker: It's not like saying 2 plus 2 is 4.
Speaker: That's right.
Speaker: But if you say 2 plus 2 is 5, that's wrong.
Speaker: So it's a bit more personal, I'd say, a bit more subjective.
Speaker: So, well, we thought of what best example to use for ethics, and we thought probably the trolley problem is perhaps one of the most divisive, but also one of the most interesting ethical dilemmas.
Speaker: So what we have with the trolley problem, as you know, is effectively the option to pull a lever, which will divert the trolley to kill only one person.
Speaker: However, if you don't pull that lever, the trolley will continue going along its railway track, but it will hit five people.
Speaker: So do you leave the trolley, perhaps walk away and let it hit the five?
Speaker: Or do you pull the lever, but then you're killing one person?
Speaker: So, yeah, what do you think on it?
Speaker: I don't know.
Speaker: I think that the main issue with this really is do bystanders count as innocent people?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Because if you say a bystander is innocent, then I don't think there's any reason why you would pull it.
Speaker: And personally, I wouldn't pull it because I think...
Speaker: Being a bystander, you don't actively do anything damaging.
Speaker: You're just there.
Speaker: But if you actively pull the lever, then you kill one person.
Speaker: So just leaving, just ignoring it.
Speaker: So I would not pull it.
Speaker: But I think that's the big issue here.
Speaker: Are bystanders innocent?
Speaker: Because I can see where you go there.
Speaker: But, you know, in my opinion, is being a bystander to the killing of five people, allowing five people to die...
Speaker: Isn't that psychologically worse, would you say, than actively killing one person and saving four lives?
Speaker: So it's a hard one to sort of decide upon.
Speaker: Do you be a bystander and allow five people to die, or do you actively kill one person?
Speaker: I just wouldn't view it as my fault, though.
Speaker: If the trolley hits five people, then I wouldn't view it as my fault.
Speaker: But if you do pull the lever, you're directly responsible.
Speaker: So you wouldn't pull the lever?
Speaker: I would not pull the lever.
Speaker: What would you do, John?
Speaker: Well, this is really ethics, I guess, because I would pull the lever.
Speaker: I think I'd pull the lever purely just because to save the four people, to effectively save four people, because I think being the bystander, witnessing and allowing the death of five, in my opinion, that's even worse than just killing one person, but saving four in the process.
Speaker: However, you know, I thought, I knew we wouldn't be able to agree on this issue.
Speaker: So I thought, what do other philosophers say on it?
Speaker: And over at Phil Papers, run by David Bourgeau and David Chalmers, they have, well, quite an interesting sort of take on the issue.
Speaker: And in one of their surveys, they asked philosophers, what would they do?
Speaker: And about 60, 68, 64% of professional philosophers said they would pull the lever.
Speaker: However, 8% said they would not pull the lever.
Speaker: They agree with you.
Speaker: However, the remaining 24% just said they didn't have a view or couldn't answer.
Speaker: So, yeah, what do you think?
Speaker: I don't know.
Speaker: I think it's just... It depends what kind of ethical school you follow first.
Speaker: Also, I don't think I would be able to live with myself if I pulled the lever because I'd be like, okay, well...
Speaker: How do I know that the one person I killed wasn't a future genius, someone who killed cancer, but I saved five criminals?
Speaker: How would I know that?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: And that really leads on really nicely into Kantian ethics.
Speaker: It does, yeah.
Speaker: Named after Kant.
Speaker: So what's his Kantian ethics?
Speaker: Yeah, I'll ask you that.
Speaker: Kant is an 18th century German philosopher.
Speaker: And he devised this ethical theory in many of his books where he basically says that the right action comes from duty.
Speaker: So a lot of people call Kantian ethics, Kantian deontology, deont coming from duty.
Speaker: And basically he says that there's two imperatives.
Speaker: The hypothetical one, which is like, if you want to get good grades, you should study.
Speaker: Like, if you want to eat bread, you should go to the shop.
Speaker: And then the second one, which is like the categorical imperative, which is basically, this is always right, this is always wrong.
Speaker: And that's how Kant takes his ethics.
Speaker: Doesn't matter the situation.
Speaker: So basically, he does say that there needs to be a universal principle.
Speaker: So if you say an action, such as, I don't know,
Speaker: in this case, killing one person, Kant would say, well, if you kill everyone, if everyone kills, then you wouldn't have anyone left to kill.
Speaker: So then that's not... It's not able to be done.
Speaker: It's not a correct action.
Speaker: But then also Kant does say not to treat someone as a means to an end.
Speaker: So always treat them with dignity and respect.
Speaker: And I think this is really the main thing in Kantian ethics is that
Speaker: there's no difference in situations.
Speaker: So an act is always right.
Speaker: An act is always wrong.
Speaker: And Kant also believes, yeah.
Speaker: So it's like the absolute morality, which we'll be going on to later.
Speaker: But I was going to say, he has these, as you mentioned, these sort of categorical imperatives, he calls them.
Speaker: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: Killing, it's always wrong.
Speaker: You know, it's wrong if you just kill someone.
Speaker: And it's even wrong if in war, let's say, perhaps you kill someone.
Speaker: Kant views it as just totally wrong.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So Kant would say that if you don't know the outcome, so if the outcome isn't certain, also an action is always wrong.
Speaker: So, for example, lying, he says, well, even because this is he wrote a paper on this because people are saying, OK, Kant, but what about if someone asked me, do I look great?
Speaker: And I'm going to be honest, I say no and I had their feelings.
Speaker: He says, well, you shouldn't lie even then.
Speaker: because you don't know the outcome.
Speaker: So he gives the example of someone comes to your house, your neighbor, and says, can you please hide me from the mafia?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: And you say, yeah, sure.
Speaker: And then the mafia comes knocking on the door and says, have you seen this guy?
Speaker: And if you say, no, you haven't, Can says, well, what if the guy you hit hears the knocks on the door and then leaves your house and then bumps into the mafia on the street?
Speaker: Then you bear responsibility.
Speaker: So Kant also wants to run away from this feeling of responsibility, basically.
Speaker: He just wants to say, this is not me.
Speaker: I've done the right action.
Speaker: I didn't pull the lever.
Speaker: Not my fault the five people died.
Speaker: That's basically what he thinks.
Speaker: Yeah, I was going to say there's quite a popular sort of what people say is a great advantage of Kantian ethics, and that is that it's universal and that all humanity is treated equally.
Speaker: And he's only got one way of sort of approaching it, if you know what I mean.
Speaker: But as he treats everyone equally, that is what is said to be a great advantage of Kantian ethics.
Speaker: Exactly.
Speaker: There's no ambiguity, really.
Speaker: like another theory is where you're like okay but what this situation is it really that different here it's just wrong right but then you also come to the issue with canteen ethics is that really life is very diverse so is one theory good enough for everything i don't know well before we conclude on canteen ethics i thought perhaps you know i could just chuck in a quick term which is
Speaker: With Kant, he writes... It's quite complicated, his writing, let's say.
Speaker: It's more than complicated.
Speaker: I think the main issue is the translation.
Speaker: They're not very good.
Speaker: But he always refers to a maxim, which, as I would understand, is a rule or principle, and it ties into that absolute morality of how... Yeah, so what Kant wants to say here, really, and the problem with it, is that maxim...
Speaker: comes from Latin.
Speaker: Latin maximus is the most.
Speaker: That's fine, but it hasn't been translated properly because of a philosophical term.
Speaker: And what he means is, if everyone does this, I've explained.
Speaker: So he says cheating, for example, cheating on your wife.
Speaker: He says, if everyone cheated on their wife, then the concept of marriage would become irrelevant.
Speaker: So you can't do it because it would diminish the very concept of marriage.
Speaker: So if everyone does it, can it still be applied?
Speaker: If not, then the action is wrong.
Speaker: If yes, then the action is right.
Speaker: That's what Kant says, basically.
Speaker: So, yeah, it's about the sort of rules or principles, Maxim.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I think that ties on quite nicely.
Speaker: Should we move on to utilitarianism, perhaps?
Speaker: Yes.
Speaker: So, John, can you explain really utilitarianism what it means?
Speaker: So, yes.
Speaker: If anyone isn't familiar.
Speaker: We'll jump back to absolute morality and all that involving Kant.
Speaker: But firstly, utilitarianism.
Speaker: So I think the easiest way to sort of explain utilitarianism
Speaker: it's a sort of long, complicated word, is an acronym GG4GN.
Speaker: Greatest good for greatest number.
Speaker: And as you can agree, that's sort of utilitarianism in an abbreviation acronym.
Speaker: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: I'd agree with that.
Speaker: But, you know, the longer explanation is it encourages actions that maximise happiness and wellbeing.
Speaker: So greatest good, actions that promote the greatest good for the greatest number, literally.
Speaker: And it ties into the idea of utility, which is sort of happiness.
Speaker: So utilitarianism, as you know, it's a strand of consequentialism, which believes on focusing on an action's consequences and in this case, the good it produces.
Speaker: So what is unique about it is that whilst focusing on the consequences, it also focuses on the interests of humanity directly.
Speaker: And so it's really focused on good and how to achieve the greatest good.
Speaker: So on the face of it, I've got to say, it does sound pretty good, you know, greatest good for the greatest number.
Speaker: But what do you think about it?
Speaker: I'm not a big fan, to be honest.
Speaker: I'm not a big fan because I think it's hard to classify greatest good.
Speaker: So Bentham, who wrote, founded utilitarianism, basically had this mathematical formula.
Speaker: But I don't think happiness is a mathematical formula.
Speaker: You cannot quantify it.
Speaker: I think to improve utilitarianism, in my opinion, I'd say least bad for the least number.
Speaker: I think that's a bit better than greatest good for the greatest number if you have the least amount of bad down to the least number of people.
Speaker: And I agree with you.
Speaker: Oh, you go first.
Speaker: Because I think it's really hard to say, well, if five people get happiness and one person should suffer, I think that's really hard.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: What do you think?
Speaker: Yeah, I was going to say, like, I do agree with you.
Speaker: And in circumstances, perhaps doing, you have to do bad things to bring about the best in the long term.
Speaker: So, you know, not necessarily bad things, but things which aren't the best in the present, which bring about the best thing in the future.
Speaker: So that's a key thing which utilitarianism misses.
Speaker: Not necessarily the thing which brings about the best thing in the present is the best for the future.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: However, you know, I was sort of looking at what are the advantages of it because I don't really agree with it like you totally.
Speaker: And it said from my sort of research of it, and I do sort of agree with this, and it's like an easy, it's just an easy way of deciding what is the best cause of action for humanity, for everyone to take in the present as the main focus.
Speaker: I do agree with that.
Speaker: In the present, I think great is good for the greatest number.
Speaker: It's an easy...
Speaker: And it's a pretty accessible course of action to take.
Speaker: Yeah, I think also we were talking about this.
Speaker: Climbing Mount Everest isn't nice.
Speaker: No one likes it.
Speaker: But in the long term, it brings huge gratification.
Speaker: It's like a DAV camp.
Speaker: If it rains, then it's horrible and everyone hates it.
Speaker: but everyone says afterwards that, you know, it was actually quite fun.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I mean, in the moment, the greatest good probably wouldn't be, you know, camping, but in the future, as you said, you get that gratification from it.
Speaker: So would you like to explain quickly the transplant surgeon problem, sort of utilitarian problem?
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So basically you have a healthy patient come in to a hospital,
Speaker: and for like a checkup or something.
Speaker: And then a transplant surgeon sees X patient and says, okay, well, we're gonna put this individual on the table and we're gonna harvest his heart, his kidneys, his lungs and everything.
Speaker: And we're gonna cure 10 people with this.
Speaker: Now, some people would say,
Speaker: if we follow utilitarianism, that is a completely right action to do because you're providing 10 people and their families a huge amount of happiness, but only harming one person.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: Other people, on the other hand, would heavily disagree, saying, you know, one person's innocent, why would you do that?
Speaker: So what do you think, John?
Speaker: What would you say?
Speaker: I mean, it's obviously a hard issue.
Speaker: Do you sacrifice one person, but then save...
Speaker: all these other people.
Speaker: I mean, firstly, which sort of goes amiss is obviously the person has a right to decide whether they want to, whether they want to have their organs harvested.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I think number one, it's the person's right to decide before we even get into the whole debate.
Speaker: I mean, if the person is willing and is willing to have their organs harvested,
Speaker: and to die in that moment, but then to save 10 people who in this circumstance would have to be on the verge of death, I mean.
Speaker: So not people who could, let's say, live for another 10 years, but I mean, people who are literally on the verge of death.
Speaker: And you have someone who perhaps, and it's difficult when it comes to this issue, because this person,
Speaker: If they've, you know, because it's never right to kill someone, full stop.
Speaker: So actually now re-evaluating it, it is hard because do you kill that one healthy person?
Speaker: but then save 10 people who are on the brink of death?
Speaker: I don't know.
Speaker: But in the case of transplants, though, they don't usually provide a huge solution for the long term.
Speaker: So perhaps actually now, I've sort of speaking this through, I've gone full circle, and I think I felt perhaps you wouldn't save the 10 people because with a transplant, you don't definitely know for sure that they're going to live for that long.
Speaker: What do you think?
Speaker: Yeah, I also wouldn't do it.
Speaker: I think just coming back to Kant and what he says, you know, it's not treating someone as a means to an end.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: I think that applies quite well in this situation.
Speaker: So I don't think it is right to treat that one individual as just, you know, organ donning bank.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: But also treat them with some dignity and respect.
Speaker: And even if they would...
Speaker: have agreed to do it, it's a very tough question for the person actually doing the transplant as well.
Speaker: Or what do you do then?
Speaker: You know, even if the person wants to and you're like, okay, well, how do I do this?
Speaker: Is it right?
Speaker: I don't know.
Speaker: It's a very tough question.
Speaker: I think it's probably even tougher than the trolley problem.
Speaker: Yeah, I agree with you there.
Speaker: Because...
Speaker: Even though the trolley problem, you have death either way, it's a very sort of direct death, perhaps even more direct that you're causing the transplant surgeon problem.
Speaker: Because in this problem, you could literally be killing a person, but then saving 10.
Speaker: But then you have to think, is it right to kill a person?
Speaker: Whereas in the trolley problem, someone is going to die.
Speaker: At least one person is going to die either way.
Speaker: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: Exactly.
Speaker: So I think now we're going to move on to the whole absolute and then relative morality bit, if you would like to explain what that means and the difference, really.
Speaker: Yeah, that's what I was literally going to say.
Speaker: So, well, we have absolute morality firstly.
Speaker: So this is the ethical view that actions are either intrinsically, i.e.
Speaker: totally right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances, consequences or context.
Speaker: So they're like Kant.
Speaker: Yeah, it's exactly like Kant.
Speaker: It's like killing is always wrong.
Speaker: It doesn't matter if it's in war or if it's basically murder.
Speaker: Killing is always wrong.
Speaker: But then you have relative morality.
Speaker: So relative morality is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of morals and that morality is relative to the conditions, circumstances and culture.
Speaker: So this is for example, killing is not at all acceptable as like murder, but then it is acceptable in let's say war.
Speaker: So what do you think on this?
Speaker: I've always been an absolutist, really.
Speaker: I think the relative morality spectrum gives a slippery slope where you kind of lose all moral compass.
Speaker: I feel like it's just more pragmatic to be an absolutist and say, okay, this is right, this is wrong.
Speaker: But also that comes to the question, who should decide what is wrong and what is wrong?
Speaker: So I don't know, John, what do you think on that?
Speaker: Who should decide?
Speaker: I definitely, yeah, see where you're coming from.
Speaker: I mean, like, who should decide?
Speaker: Who makes the certain morals effectively for society?
Speaker: I mean, obviously, you could say that in countries which are, like, extremely religious, or even a country like England, which used to be very religious in the past, your morals sort of derive from the church and effectively the scripture to which everyone believes in.
Speaker: However, in a society, let's say that isn't religious, particularly, how do you decide the morals?
Speaker: That's a big question.
Speaker: And yeah, I don't know who would.
Speaker: But I think with me, I was going to say absolute morality is the one advantage of it is that, as you said, it's quite pragmatic.
Speaker: It's quite simple.
Speaker: And, you know, killing and war, you may have to do it, but it still doesn't make it morally right because you're still taking away someone's life.
Speaker: So would you like to give sort of the final opinion of the podcast on absolute relative morality?
Speaker: Yeah, so I'd say, yeah, it is definitely more pragmatic.
Speaker: And it's also a bit easier, like, eliminate some of the bystanding questions.
Speaker: But I also just wanted to say, you know, some countries...
Speaker: very religious countries have some laws and some morals which perhaps are a bit interesting.
Speaker: Yeah, that is.
Speaker: So even in those cases, there's a whole other spectrum.
Speaker: Okay, well, you know, Christianity says this, Islam says this, Judaism says this, which one's right, which one's wrong.
Speaker: So I think the whole, the relative morality, first of all, is a big slippery slope because then you can lose everything.
Speaker: You're like, okay, well, utilitarianism, but then you go into another thing.
Speaker: You're like, well, this actually brings more happiness.
Speaker: Absolute morality, its main issue is who decides.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: That's the main issue.
Speaker: But I think if you do manage to solve that issue as a state, religiously or just secularly, then it's a quite easy thing to follow.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So with that, should we conclude the first episode of the podcast?
Speaker: Yeah, I think so.
Speaker: I mean, next week, if you've liked this enough and would like to listen in the future, we will be sort of moving away from the world of ethics for the time and we'll be moving to history and discussing revolutions.
Speaker: And whether they're the biggest change in history, whether they're necessarily goods and just all aspects of revolutions.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker: So thank you everyone for tuning into the first coffee table conversation.
Speaker: And we both hope that we will see you in the next episodes.
Speaker: Thank you very much.
Speaker: Oh, thank you.
Speaker: Goodbye.
Speaker: Oh, okay.
