1

AZA 1371
Introduction to
Philosophy
MORAL DILEMMAS AND
PHILOSOPHY
 1. Your lecturer: Thando
Nkohla 2

Office:
Room C2.19 (School of Social
Science)
Phone: 011 950 4213
Email: thando.nkohla@monash.edu
Consultation times:
Check unit guide or make an
appointment
 2. Timetable 3

Lecture:
Thursday: 10h00-11h55 (SemRoom 3)
Tutorials:
Monday, 14h00-14h55 (Tutorial Room 15)
Tuesday, 8h00-8h55 (Tutorial Room 16)
Tuesday, 12h00-13h00 (Seminar Room 13)
3. Lectures and 4

tutorials
Attendance compulsory: At least 75%
Tutorial attendance counts towards 5%
of your semester mark
No tutorials in the first week
Continuation of lectures
Debates and discussion about issues
raised in class
Class attendance is now also
compulsory and 5% of your semester
mark depends on you being in class
 4. Prescribed material 5

Prescribed Book: Singer, P. 2011. Practical Ethics. 3rd

edition. Cambridge: University Press.
In the bookshop
Seven copies on reserve in the library

Available on Moodle:
Unit Guide
Study Guide (Course Reader 2012 edition)
Lecture notes (after the lecture)
Weekly quizzes
Guides are also available on the shared drive
S: UG-Subjects > Shared > Arts (Social Science)
> Philosophy-2016 > AZA1371
 5. Overview 6

1. Introduction / What is wrong with killing?

2. Consequentialism / Utilitarianism
3. Rights-based theories
4. Settling moral debates / Self-defence
5. Film: A Reasonable Man
6. Self-defence / Hobbes on self-defence
7. Equality, race, and species
8. Killing other animals
9. Abortion and Consequentialism
10. Abortion and Feminism
11. Virtue Ethics and impartiality / Relativism
12. Review
6. Assessment Tasks 7

Quizzes = 10%
First Essay = 20%
Due:(week 5)
900-1000 words
Second Essay = 20%
Due: (week 9)
900-1000 words
Tutorial attendance = 5%
Lecture attendance = 5%
Two hour exam = 40%
7. Note-taking 8

Irecommend you take some

notes
Butdo not simply write what is
on the slides
NB = Discussion and debate
Slides
will be available on
Moodle after class
 9

Lecture 1.1
INTRODUCTION
Part I: A Hypothetical 10

The Trolley (also known as the RUNAWAY TRAIN):

You are standing by the railway track, with a
lever, which will divert the trolley onto a
different track
A trolley is coming
Currently, the trolley is directed to head
down a track where there are five people
The other track has only one person on it

What would you do?

How can you justify your view?
Part II: Our Approach 11

What is this unit about?

Life, Death and Morality
Look at the ethics of killing
Emergency situations
Self-defence
Abortion
Euthanasia
Killing animals
Part II: An introduction to 12

ethics
Ethics: Whats that?
Ethics vs. morality:
Difference?
Religion and morality:
Historical connection, but
not essentially connected
Ethics is about the
justification of behavior
An introduction to Ethics 13

(cont.)
Justification is about giving reasons
Singer says that for people to be living to
ethical standards is for them to believe, for
any reason, that it is right to do as they are
doing (p.10).
Living according to ethical standards is being
prepared to defend, to justify, ones way of
living
But not any reason counts as ethical
Ethical justification takes a universal point of
view
Scenario 1: Oscar Pistorius

Oscar shot his girlfriend four times behind a toilet

door because
he believed that she was a burglar.
Which one of these possibilities is true:

1. He mistakenly killed her but the act was done in

self-defense because he believed that it was a
burglar behind the door
2. He mistakenly killed her but should be held
responsible for her death because his action
was irrational
3. He killed her but could have avoided doing so
4. He killed her because it was his intention to do
so

Which of these might be considered murder?

Scenario 2: A Reasonable
Man
Sipho killed his neighbours baby with a knife in the lounge. The baby
was left there by her mother to rest and was crawling under a blanket
when Sipho came into the room. Sipho mistook the figure under the
blanket for being a tokoloshe and acted from self-defense because
he believed he was killing a tokoloshe.

His attorney says that Sipho did not commit a crime as he believed that
he was doing the right thing, sincerely believing that he is killing a
tokoloshe.

1. How is Siphos situation different from that of Oscar?

2. Was Siphos actions irrational?
3. What role should beliefs play in terms of guilt and responsibility?
Scenario 3: The pickpocket 16

Suppose somebody takes your wallet, and runs

away with it.
Afterwards they are caught and asked why they did
it.
Consider these possible replies:

1. Anyone in my position would have done it.

2. It was in my interest to do so. Too bad if it
harmed someone else.
3. Although the person robbed is worse off, I
needed the money more than they did.

Which of these might be considered attempted

ethical
justifications?
How can philosophy help 17

us to do ethics?
A controversial question!
Philosophers are experts in assessing how good an
argument is
Arguments are the means of showing what our
reasons are
So philosophical training should equip you better
to assess how good someones reasons are when
they attempt to justify their behaviour
How can Philosophy help 18

us to do ethics?
How will this work in practice?

Very roughly: We try to apply our

philosophical skills at checking the
reasons for behaviour in real practical
problems
In particular, we shall be looking at:
Killing in emergency rescue situations
Killing in self-defense
Killing animals
Abortion
Part III: Looking for 19

Principles
Indoing philosophy, it is often
helpful to look for a principle
that covers the case
Why principles?
They look like good
candidates for justifications
from a universal point of
view
Part III: Looking for 20

Principles
Two principles:
1. Sanctity of Life (SOL):
It is always wrong knowingly to kill an innocent
person
What does SOL recommend we do in TROLLEY?
2. Best Consequences (BC)
One ought to act as to bring about the best
achievable outcome
What does BC recommend we do in TROLLEY?
Part III: Looking for 21

Principles
The Spare-Parts Surgeon (also known as
TRANSPLANT):
Five patients in need of transplants in order to
save their lives
One other patient has five healthy organs,
which could be used to save the five
The surgeon can kill the one such that no one
knows, and such that the five others are
saved

May the surgeon kill one to save five?

What does the SOL principle say?
What does BC say?