If you had to choose between killing one person to save the lives of five others and doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch a course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white. FREE TO CHOOSE? THIS LAND IS MY LAND HIRED GUNS
Related Articles
So you thought slavery was a thing of the past?
the fight against human trafficking in the US and Argentina
I heard "you are Charlie". Are you Raif too?
for those who care a lot about freedom of speech
an original photo and video campaign
and the gay rights in Russia
the Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic
meet Nick Hager
What are the rights of the marginalized?
the work of the Pivot Legal Society
the powerful testimony of Yemeni activist Farea al-Muslimi
A man's fight to save the world
life and death of a Brazilian hero
Junior Smart and the problem in Britain’s criminal system
STAY IN TOUCH
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
AND RECEIVE OUR LATEST STORIES
OLBIOS NETWORK FOR ACTION