Harvard University Justice Video: The Moral Side Of Murder

I thoroughly enjoyed the Harvard University Justice video titled the Moral Side of Murder that was presented. Moral reasoning is a very intense topic, where few people would completely agree. The stories presented and the topics discussed really made me think about my own moral compass and what I would and would not be willing to do in each situation. I found that I leaned much more toward being a categorical moral reasoning. However, I can also think of circumstances where I would behave more like a consequentialist.
The video presentation was concerning consequentialist moral reasoning and categorical moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning deals with the consequences of the actions and doesn’t place a lot of emphasis on the actions themselves. Whereas categorical moral reasoning focuses more on the actions and less on the consequences.
In the story of the trolley car careening out of control, I found that I was with the majority of the audience in that I would make the

Dudley & Stevens. However, I noticed that I was in the minority as the discussion continued. While I understand the rationality behind what the shipmates did to Richard Parker, I cannot excuse it. I definitely sway toward the categorical reasoning on this topic. I agreed with the audience member that said that “murder is murder.” My opinion did not change when a lottery was discussed or if consent was given. I believe to murder Mr. Parker, with or without his consent, would be wrong. To make the conscious decision that one life is less than another or that the advancement of many is more important than the life of one, is morally wrong. As with the previous example involving the five patients needing a transplant and taking the first to die and using those organs to save the others, I believe the first to die naturally would then be available for the others to feed off of if so