Professor Michael Sandel's Argument Analysis

Professor Michael Sandel started the lecture with several scenarios. The first scenario talked about a trolley car on a track. Professor Sandel wanted the audience individually to be the driver/conductor of said trolley car. As one is driving the trolley car down the track, the brakes malfunction; however, the steering is functioning properly. If the driver of the trolley car continued forward, he would crash into five people. The driver of the trolley car had an alternative solution and a decision to make. The driver of the trolley car could turn the trolley car to the right, onto an alternative track, and spare the lives of the five people. However, if the trolley car driver took the alternative track, he would kill one person standing on the alternative track. The scenario was discussed and several different opinions on the matter were debated. Some students said they would lead the trolley car to the alternative track and kill one person instead of five. Other students disagreed with the statements and said they would crash into the five people and spare the life of the person on the alternative track. After a brief discussion, Professor Michael Sandel changed the scenario. The second scenario placed the audience as an onlooker. …show more content…
Consequentialist moral reasoning was defined as, “the right thing or moral thing to do depends on the consequences that will result from your actions.” The solution of killing one person and saving the lives of five people was described as the consequentialist moral reasoning. In contrast, the categorical moral reasoning was explained that people thought it was wrong to kill an innocent person, even if it meant that it spared five people. Categorical moral reasoning entertained the values that intrinsic quality of the act matters