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
and the New Citizens Movement in China
et la force du regroupement
Améliorer une détention inhumaine
la mission des Prisonniers Sans Frontières
Voiceless indigenes say it with a video
the excellent project 'Video in the Villages'
the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
meet Kenneth Roth
how can video become a catalyst for change
Is there justice for the homeless, addicts, and sex workers?
living in the margins in Canada
One woman's battle against a pharmaceutical giant
Anand Grover's crusade for access of the poor to medicine
The Brazilian women as targets
and the project of a lawyer
STAY IN TOUCH
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER
AND RECEIVE OUR LATEST STORIES
OLBIOS NETWORK FOR ACTION