Browse content similar to The Moral Side of Murder. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
'My name is Michael Sandel and I teach Political Philosophy at Harvard University.' | 0:00:13 | 0:00:19 | |
The lecture you're about to see is the first one I give in a course called Justice. | 0:00:26 | 0:00:32 | |
I begin by posing some moral dilemmas about murder | 0:00:32 | 0:00:35 | |
and I ask the students a question - is killing sometimes the right thing to do? | 0:00:35 | 0:00:42 | |
APPLAUSE | 0:00:51 | 0:00:53 | |
This is a course about justice and we begin with a story. | 0:00:55 | 0:00:59 | |
Suppose you're the driver of a trolley car and it's hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. | 0:00:59 | 0:01:07 | |
At the end of the track, you notice five workers working on the track. | 0:01:07 | 0:01:12 | |
You try to stop, but you can't. Your brakes don't work. | 0:01:12 | 0:01:16 | |
You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these workers | 0:01:16 | 0:01:21 | |
they will all die. Let's assume you know that for sure. | 0:01:21 | 0:01:26 | |
And so you feel helpless | 0:01:26 | 0:01:28 | |
until you notice that there is, off to the right, | 0:01:28 | 0:01:32 | |
a side track. And at the end of that track | 0:01:32 | 0:01:37 | |
there is one worker working on the track. | 0:01:37 | 0:01:41 | |
Your steering wheel works. | 0:01:41 | 0:01:43 | |
So you can turn the trolley car, if you want to, onto the side track. | 0:01:43 | 0:01:50 | |
killing the one, but sparing the five. | 0:01:50 | 0:01:54 | |
Here's our first question. | 0:01:54 | 0:01:57 | |
What's the right thing to do? | 0:01:57 | 0:02:00 | |
What would you do? | 0:02:00 | 0:02:02 | |
Let's take a poll. | 0:02:02 | 0:02:04 | |
How many would turn the trolley car onto the side track? | 0:02:05 | 0:02:10 | |
Raise your hands. | 0:02:10 | 0:02:12 | |
How many wouldn't? How many would go straight ahead? | 0:02:14 | 0:02:18 | |
Keep your hands up, those of you who would go straight ahead. | 0:02:20 | 0:02:24 | |
A handful of people would. The vast majority would turn. | 0:02:26 | 0:02:30 | |
Now we need to begin to investigate the reasons why you think it's the right thing to do. | 0:02:30 | 0:02:37 | |
Let's begin with those in the majority. Who would turn to go onto the side track? | 0:02:37 | 0:02:44 | |
Why would you do it? What would be your reason? Who is willing to volunteer a reason? | 0:02:44 | 0:02:51 | |
Go ahead. Stand up. | 0:02:51 | 0:02:54 | |
Because it can't be right to kill five people when you can only kill one person instead. | 0:02:54 | 0:03:00 | |
It wouldn't be right to kill five if you could kill one person instead. | 0:03:02 | 0:03:07 | |
That's a good reason. That's a good reason. | 0:03:09 | 0:03:13 | |
Who else? Does everybody agree with that reason? | 0:03:15 | 0:03:19 | |
Go ahead. | 0:03:21 | 0:03:23 | |
It was the same reason on 9/11. | 0:03:23 | 0:03:26 | |
We regard the people who flew the plane into the Pennsylvania field as heroes | 0:03:26 | 0:03:32 | |
because they chose to kill the people on the plane and not kill more people in big buildings. | 0:03:32 | 0:03:38 | |
So the principle there was the same on 9/11. A tragic circumstance, | 0:03:38 | 0:03:44 | |
but better to kill one so that five can live? Is that the reason most of you had, those who would turn? | 0:03:44 | 0:03:50 | |
Yes? | 0:03:50 | 0:03:52 | |
Let's hear now | 0:03:52 | 0:03:54 | |
from those in the minority, those who wouldn't turn. | 0:03:54 | 0:04:00 | |
Yes. | 0:04:01 | 0:04:02 | |
Well, I think that's the same mentality that justifies genocide and totalitarianism. | 0:04:02 | 0:04:08 | |
In order to save one type of race, you wipe out the other. | 0:04:08 | 0:04:12 | |
So what would you do in this case? You would, to avoid the horrors of genocide, | 0:04:12 | 0:04:19 | |
you would crash into the five and kill them? | 0:04:19 | 0:04:23 | |
-Presumably, yes. -You would? -Yeah. | 0:04:26 | 0:04:30 | |
OK. Who else? That's a brave answer. Thank you. | 0:04:30 | 0:04:34 | |
Let's consider another trolley car case | 0:04:35 | 0:04:41 | |
and see whether | 0:04:42 | 0:04:45 | |
those of you in the majority | 0:04:46 | 0:04:49 | |
want to adhere to the principle "better that one should die so that five should live". | 0:04:49 | 0:04:56 | |
This time you're not the driver of the trolley car. You're an onlooker. | 0:04:56 | 0:05:00 | |
You're standing on a bridge overlooking a trolley car track. | 0:05:00 | 0:05:04 | |
And down the track comes a trolley car. | 0:05:04 | 0:05:08 | |
At the end of the track are five workers. | 0:05:08 | 0:05:11 | |
The brakes don't work, the trolley car is about to careen into the five and kill them, | 0:05:11 | 0:05:18 | |
and now you're not the driver, you really feel helpless | 0:05:18 | 0:05:22 | |
until you notice, standing next to you, | 0:05:22 | 0:05:26 | |
leaning over the bridge is a very fat man. | 0:05:28 | 0:05:33 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:05:34 | 0:05:37 | |
And... | 0:05:37 | 0:05:38 | |
you could give him a shove, | 0:05:39 | 0:05:43 | |
he would fall over the bridge onto the track, | 0:05:43 | 0:05:48 | |
right in the way of the trolley car. | 0:05:50 | 0:05:54 | |
He would die, but he would spare the five. | 0:05:54 | 0:05:58 | |
Now... | 0:05:58 | 0:06:00 | |
How many would push the fat man over the bridge? Raise your hand. | 0:06:01 | 0:06:06 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:06:07 | 0:06:09 | |
How many wouldn't? | 0:06:10 | 0:06:12 | |
Most people wouldn't. | 0:06:13 | 0:06:16 | |
Here's the obvious question - what became of the principle... | 0:06:16 | 0:06:20 | |
better to save five lives even if it means sacrificing one? | 0:06:22 | 0:06:26 | |
What became of the principle that almost everyone endorsed in the first case? | 0:06:26 | 0:06:32 | |
I need to hear from someone who was in the majority in both cases. | 0:06:32 | 0:06:36 | |
How do you explain the difference between the two? Yes. | 0:06:36 | 0:06:40 | |
The second one, I guess, involves an act of choice of pushing the person down. | 0:06:40 | 0:06:46 | |
I guess that person himself would otherwise not have been involved in the situation at all | 0:06:46 | 0:06:52 | |
and so to choose on his behalf, I guess, to... | 0:06:52 | 0:06:56 | |
involve him in something he'd otherwise have escaped is, I guess, | 0:06:56 | 0:07:04 | |
more than what you have in the first place where the three parties - the driver and two sets of workers - | 0:07:04 | 0:07:10 | |
-are already, I guess, in the situation. -But the guy working on the track off to the side, | 0:07:10 | 0:07:16 | |
he didn't choose to sacrifice his life any more than the fat man did. Did he? | 0:07:16 | 0:07:22 | |
-That's true, but he was on the tracks... -This guy was on the bridge! | 0:07:24 | 0:07:29 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:07:29 | 0:07:31 | |
Go ahead. You can come back if you want. | 0:07:32 | 0:07:35 | |
All right. It's a hard question. You did well, you did very well. It's a hard question. | 0:07:35 | 0:07:41 | |
Who else can...find a way | 0:07:41 | 0:07:45 | |
of reconciling...the reaction of the majority in these two cases? | 0:07:45 | 0:07:51 | |
Yes? | 0:07:51 | 0:07:52 | |
Well, I guess in the first case where you have the one worker and the five, | 0:07:52 | 0:07:57 | |
it's a choice between those two and you have to make a choice. People will die because of the trolley car, | 0:07:57 | 0:08:03 | |
not necessarily because of your direct actions. The trolley car is a runaway, it's a split-second choice, | 0:08:03 | 0:08:10 | |
whereas pushing the fat man over is an act of murder on your part. | 0:08:10 | 0:08:14 | |
You have control over that, whereas you may not have control over the trolley car. | 0:08:14 | 0:08:20 | |
-I think it's a slightly different situation. -All right. Who has a reply? That's good. | 0:08:20 | 0:08:26 | |
Who wants to reply? Is that a way out of this? | 0:08:26 | 0:08:32 | |
I don't think that's a very good reason because you choose... Either way, you choose who dies - | 0:08:32 | 0:08:38 | |
choose to turn and kill him, which is an act of conscious thought, | 0:08:38 | 0:08:42 | |
or choose to push the fat man over, which is also an active, conscious action. | 0:08:42 | 0:08:47 | |
-Either way, you're making a choice. -Do you want to reply? | 0:08:47 | 0:08:52 | |
I'm not really sure that's the case. It still seems different - pushing someone over onto the tracks | 0:08:52 | 0:08:59 | |
-and killing him. You are actually killing him yourself. -Pushing him with your own hands. -Pushing him. | 0:08:59 | 0:09:05 | |
And that's different than steering something that is going to cause death into another... | 0:09:05 | 0:09:11 | |
-It doesn't really sound right saying it now! -No, it's good. | 0:09:11 | 0:09:16 | |
-What's your name? -Andrew. -Let me ask you this question. | 0:09:16 | 0:09:20 | |
Suppose... | 0:09:21 | 0:09:23 | |
standing on the bridge, next to the fat man, I didn't have to push him. | 0:09:23 | 0:09:29 | |
Suppose he was standing over a trap door that I could open by turning a steering wheel like that? | 0:09:29 | 0:09:36 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:09:36 | 0:09:38 | |
Would you turn? | 0:09:38 | 0:09:40 | |
-For some reason, that still just seems more wrong. -Right. -I mean... | 0:09:40 | 0:09:46 | |
-Maybe if you accidentally leaned into the steering wheel... -LAUGHTER | 0:09:46 | 0:09:51 | |
..but... Or say that the car is hurtling towards a switch that will drop the trap, | 0:09:51 | 0:09:58 | |
-then...I could agree with that. -Fair enough. | 0:09:58 | 0:10:02 | |
It still seems wrong in a way that it doesn't seem wrong in the first place to turn? | 0:10:02 | 0:10:08 | |
And in the first situation, you're involved directly with it? In the second, you're an onlooker. | 0:10:08 | 0:10:14 | |
-All right. -So you have the choice of becoming involved or not. -Let's forget for the moment this case. | 0:10:14 | 0:10:21 | |
That's good. | 0:10:21 | 0:10:23 | |
Let's imagine a different case. This time you're a doctor in an emergency room. | 0:10:23 | 0:10:29 | |
And six patients come to you | 0:10:29 | 0:10:31 | |
They've been in a terrible trolley car wreck. | 0:10:33 | 0:10:37 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:10:37 | 0:10:39 | |
Five of them sustained moderate injuries, one is severely injured. | 0:10:40 | 0:10:45 | |
You could spend all day caring for the one severely injured victim, but in that time the five would die. | 0:10:45 | 0:10:51 | |
Or you could look after the five, restore them to health, but the one severely injured person | 0:10:51 | 0:10:58 | |
would die. How many would save the five now as the doctor? | 0:10:58 | 0:11:03 | |
How many would save the one? | 0:11:03 | 0:11:05 | |
Very few people. Just a handful of people. | 0:11:06 | 0:11:10 | |
Same reason, I assume - one life versus five? | 0:11:11 | 0:11:15 | |
Now consider another doctor case. This time you're a transplant surgeon. | 0:11:18 | 0:11:23 | |
And you have five patients each in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive. | 0:11:24 | 0:11:31 | |
One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver | 0:11:31 | 0:11:36 | |
and the fifth...a pancreas. | 0:11:36 | 0:11:40 | |
And you have no organ donors. | 0:11:40 | 0:11:44 | |
You are about to see them die. | 0:11:44 | 0:11:48 | |
And then it occurs to you that in the next room there's a healthy guy who came in for a check-up. | 0:11:49 | 0:11:57 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:11:57 | 0:11:59 | |
And he's... | 0:12:02 | 0:12:04 | |
You like that? | 0:12:04 | 0:12:07 | |
And he's...he's taking a nap. LAUGHTER | 0:12:08 | 0:12:12 | |
You could go in, very quietly, | 0:12:15 | 0:12:17 | |
yank out the five organs, | 0:12:17 | 0:12:20 | |
that person would die. | 0:12:20 | 0:12:23 | |
But you could save the five. How many would do it? | 0:12:23 | 0:12:27 | |
Anyone? | 0:12:29 | 0:12:31 | |
How many? Put your hands up if you would do it. | 0:12:32 | 0:12:36 | |
Anyone in the balcony? | 0:12:40 | 0:12:42 | |
You would? | 0:12:42 | 0:12:44 | |
Be careful - don't lean over too...! | 0:12:44 | 0:12:47 | |
How many wouldn't? | 0:12:48 | 0:12:50 | |
All right. What do you say? Speak up in the balcony, you who would yank out the organs. | 0:12:51 | 0:12:57 | |
-Why? -I'd like to explore a slightly alternate possibility | 0:12:57 | 0:13:01 | |
of just taking the one of the five who needs an organ who dies first | 0:13:01 | 0:13:05 | |
and using their four healthy organs to save the other four. | 0:13:05 | 0:13:10 | |
MILD APPLAUSE That's a pretty good idea. | 0:13:11 | 0:13:14 | |
That's a great idea. | 0:13:16 | 0:13:18 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:13:18 | 0:13:20 | |
Except for the fact | 0:13:20 | 0:13:22 | |
that you just wrecked the philosophical point. LAUGHTER | 0:13:22 | 0:13:27 | |
Let's...let's step back from these stories and these arguments | 0:13:27 | 0:13:33 | |
to notice a couple of things about the way the arguments have begun to unfold. | 0:13:33 | 0:13:39 | |
Certain moral principles have already begun to emerge | 0:13:39 | 0:13:45 | |
from the discussions we've had. | 0:13:45 | 0:13:48 | |
And let's consider what those moral principles look like. | 0:13:48 | 0:13:53 | |
The first moral principle that emerged in the discussion | 0:13:53 | 0:13:57 | |
said the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, | 0:13:57 | 0:14:01 | |
depends on the consequences that will result from your action. | 0:14:01 | 0:14:06 | |
At the end of the day, better that five should live even if one must die. | 0:14:08 | 0:14:13 | |
That's an example of consequentialist moral reasoning. | 0:14:14 | 0:14:19 | |
The state of the world that will result from the thing you do. | 0:14:25 | 0:14:30 | |
But then we went a little further when we considered those other cases | 0:14:30 | 0:14:35 | |
and people weren't so sure about consequentialist moral reasoning | 0:14:35 | 0:14:41 | |
when people hesitated to push the fat man over the bridge | 0:14:42 | 0:14:47 | |
or to yank out the organs of the innocent patient. | 0:14:48 | 0:14:52 | |
People gestured toward reasons | 0:14:52 | 0:14:55 | |
having to do with the intrinsic quality of the act itself, | 0:14:56 | 0:15:02 | |
consequences be what they may. | 0:15:02 | 0:15:04 | |
People were reluctant, people thought it was just wrong, | 0:15:05 | 0:15:09 | |
categorically wrong, | 0:15:09 | 0:15:11 | |
to kill a person, an innocent person, even for the sake of saving five lives. | 0:15:11 | 0:15:19 | |
At least people thought that in the second version of each story we considered. | 0:15:19 | 0:15:25 | |
So this points to... | 0:15:26 | 0:15:29 | |
That's regardless of the consequences. | 0:15:46 | 0:15:49 | |
We're going to explore, in the days and weeks to come, | 0:15:49 | 0:15:53 | |
the contrast between consequentialist and categorical moral principles. | 0:15:53 | 0:15:58 | |
The most influential example of consequential moral reasoning is utilitarianism, | 0:15:59 | 0:16:05 | |
a doctrine invented by Jeremy Bentham, the 18th-century English political philosopher. | 0:16:05 | 0:16:11 | |
The most important philosopher of categorical moral reasoning | 0:16:13 | 0:16:19 | |
is the 19th-century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. | 0:16:19 | 0:16:24 | |
So we will look a those two different modes of moral reasoning, | 0:16:24 | 0:16:29 | |
assess them and also consider others. | 0:16:29 | 0:16:32 | |
If you look at the syllabus, | 0:16:32 | 0:16:34 | |
you'll notice that we read a number of great and famous books. | 0:16:34 | 0:16:38 | |
Books by Aristotle, John Locke, | 0:16:38 | 0:16:41 | |
Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill and others. | 0:16:41 | 0:16:45 | |
You'll notice, too, from the syllabus that we don't only read these books. | 0:16:46 | 0:16:50 | |
We also take up contemporary political and legal controversies | 0:16:50 | 0:16:56 | |
that raise philosophical questions. | 0:16:56 | 0:16:59 | |
We will debate equality and inequality, affirmative action, | 0:16:59 | 0:17:04 | |
free speech versus hate speech, same-sex marriage, military conscription. | 0:17:04 | 0:17:09 | |
A range of practical questions. Why? Not just to enliven these abstract and distant books, | 0:17:09 | 0:17:17 | |
but to make clear, to bring out what's at stake in our everyday lives, including our political lives, | 0:17:17 | 0:17:23 | |
for philosophy. | 0:17:24 | 0:17:27 | |
And so we will read these books and we will debate these issues | 0:17:27 | 0:17:31 | |
and we'll see how each informs and illuminates the other. | 0:17:31 | 0:17:36 | |
This may sound appealing enough, | 0:17:37 | 0:17:40 | |
but here I have to issue a warning. | 0:17:40 | 0:17:43 | |
And the warning is this - | 0:17:45 | 0:17:47 | |
to read these books | 0:17:47 | 0:17:49 | |
in this way, | 0:17:51 | 0:17:53 | |
as an exercise in self-knowledge, | 0:17:53 | 0:17:56 | |
to read them in this way carries certain risks. | 0:17:56 | 0:18:00 | |
Risks that are both personal and political, | 0:18:00 | 0:18:04 | |
risks that every student of political philosophy has known. | 0:18:04 | 0:18:09 | |
These risks spring from the fact | 0:18:10 | 0:18:12 | |
that philosophy teaches us and unsettles us | 0:18:12 | 0:18:17 | |
by confronting us with what we already know. | 0:18:17 | 0:18:22 | |
There's an irony. | 0:18:23 | 0:18:25 | |
The difficulty of this course consists in the fact that it teaches what you already know. | 0:18:25 | 0:18:32 | |
It works by taking what we know from familiar, unquestioned settings | 0:18:32 | 0:18:37 | |
and making it strange. | 0:18:37 | 0:18:40 | |
That's how those examples worked, | 0:18:42 | 0:18:45 | |
the hypotheticals with which we began, with their mix of playfulness and sobriety. | 0:18:45 | 0:18:51 | |
It's also how these philosophical books work. | 0:18:51 | 0:18:54 | |
Philosophy estranges us from the familiar | 0:18:54 | 0:18:59 | |
not by supplying new information, | 0:18:59 | 0:19:01 | |
but by inviting and provoking a new way of seeing. | 0:19:02 | 0:19:07 | |
But, and here's the risk, | 0:19:09 | 0:19:12 | |
once the familiar turns strange, it's never quite the same again. | 0:19:12 | 0:19:18 | |
Self-knowledge is like lost innocence. | 0:19:20 | 0:19:24 | |
However unsettling you find it, | 0:19:24 | 0:19:28 | |
it can never be unthought or unknown. | 0:19:28 | 0:19:33 | |
What makes this enterprise difficult | 0:19:35 | 0:19:38 | |
but also riveting | 0:19:40 | 0:19:42 | |
is that moral and political philosophy is a story | 0:19:42 | 0:19:46 | |
and you don't know where the story will lead, but what you do know is that the story is about you. | 0:19:48 | 0:19:55 | |
Those are the personal risks. Now what of the political risks? | 0:19:56 | 0:20:01 | |
One way of introducing a course like this | 0:20:01 | 0:20:05 | |
would be to promise you that by reading these books and debating these issues | 0:20:05 | 0:20:10 | |
you will become a better, more responsible citizen. You will examine presuppositions of public policy, | 0:20:10 | 0:20:17 | |
hone your political judgment, you will become a more effective participant in public affairs. | 0:20:17 | 0:20:23 | |
But this would be a partial and misleading promise. | 0:20:24 | 0:20:28 | |
Political philosophy, for the most part, hasn't worked that way. | 0:20:28 | 0:20:34 | |
You have to allow for the possibility that political philosophy may make you a worse citizen, | 0:20:34 | 0:20:40 | |
rather than a better one. | 0:20:40 | 0:20:43 | |
Or at least a worse citizen before it makes you a better one. | 0:20:44 | 0:20:49 | |
And that's because philosophy is a distancing and even debilitating activity. | 0:20:50 | 0:20:58 | |
And you see this going back to Socrates. There's a dialogue, the Gorgias, | 0:20:58 | 0:21:04 | |
in which one of Socrates' friends, Callicles, tries to talk him out of philosophising. | 0:21:04 | 0:21:11 | |
Callicles tells Socrates, "Philosophy is a pretty toy, | 0:21:12 | 0:21:16 | |
"if one indulges in it with moderation at the right time of life, | 0:21:16 | 0:21:20 | |
"but if one pursues it further than one should, it is absolute ruin. | 0:21:20 | 0:21:25 | |
"Take my advice," Callicles says. "Abandon argument. | 0:21:25 | 0:21:30 | |
"Learn the accomplishments of active life. Take for your models | 0:21:30 | 0:21:35 | |
"not those people who spend their time on these petty quibbles | 0:21:35 | 0:21:39 | |
"but those who have a good livelihood and reputation and many other blessings." | 0:21:39 | 0:21:45 | |
So Callicles is really saying to Socrates, | 0:21:45 | 0:21:49 | |
"Quit philosophising. Get real. Go to business school." | 0:21:49 | 0:21:54 | |
LAUGHTER | 0:21:54 | 0:21:57 | |
And Callicles did have a point. | 0:21:57 | 0:22:00 | |
He had a point because philosophy distances us from conventions, from established assumptions | 0:22:01 | 0:22:07 | |
and from settled beliefs. Those are the risks, personal and political, | 0:22:07 | 0:22:12 | |
and in the face of these risks there is a characteristic evasion. | 0:22:12 | 0:22:16 | |
The name of the evasion is scepticism. It's the idea, | 0:22:16 | 0:22:21 | |
"We didn't resolve, once and for all, | 0:22:21 | 0:22:24 | |
"either the cases or the principles we were arguing when we began." | 0:22:25 | 0:22:30 | |
And if Aristotle and Locke and Kant and Mill haven't solved these questions after all of these years, | 0:22:31 | 0:22:39 | |
who are we to think that we here in Sanders Theatre over the course of a semester can resolve them? | 0:22:39 | 0:22:47 | |
And so maybe it's just a matter of each person having his or her own principles | 0:22:49 | 0:22:54 | |
and there's nothing more to be said about it, no way of reasoning. | 0:22:54 | 0:22:58 | |
That's the evasion, the evasion of scepticism, to which I would offer the following reply. | 0:22:58 | 0:23:04 | |
It's true, these questions have been debated for a very long time, | 0:23:04 | 0:23:09 | |
but the very fact that they have recurred and persisted | 0:23:09 | 0:23:13 | |
may suggest that though they are impossible in one sense, | 0:23:14 | 0:23:19 | |
they are unavoidable in another. | 0:23:19 | 0:23:21 | |
And the reason they are unavoidable, the reason they are inescapable is | 0:23:21 | 0:23:27 | |
that we live some answer to these questions every day. | 0:23:27 | 0:23:31 | |
So scepticism, just throwing up your hands and giving up on moral reflection | 0:23:31 | 0:23:36 | |
is no solution. | 0:23:37 | 0:23:39 | |
Immanuel Kant described very well the problem with scepticism when he wrote, | 0:23:39 | 0:23:45 | |
"Scepticism is a resting place for human reason, where it can reflect upon its dogmatic wanderings, | 0:23:45 | 0:23:51 | |
"but it is no dwelling place for permanent settlement. | 0:23:51 | 0:23:55 | |
"Simply to acquiesce in scepticism can never suffice to overcome the restlessness of reason." | 0:23:55 | 0:24:02 | |
I've tried to suggest through these stories and arguments | 0:24:05 | 0:24:09 | |
some sense of the risks and temptations, of the perils and possibilities. | 0:24:09 | 0:24:14 | |
I would simply conclude by saying that the aim of this course | 0:24:14 | 0:24:20 | |
is to awaken the restlessness of reason | 0:24:20 | 0:24:24 | |
and to see where it might lead. Thank you very much. | 0:24:24 | 0:24:28 | |
APPLAUSE | 0:24:28 | 0:24:30 | |
To challenge your views and learn more about justice, | 0:24:36 | 0:24:40 | |
go to: | 0:24:40 | 0:24:42 | |
And follow the links to the Open University. | 0:24:45 | 0:24:49 | |
Subtitles by Subtext for Red Bee Media Ltd - 2011 | 0:25:06 | 0:25:10 | |
Email [email protected] | 0:25:11 | 0:25:13 |