On 3rd April, the research cell was proud to organize, a first of its kind, lecture series event. The event involved introducing students to concepts of philosophy, that as economics students, one may not have the opportunity to be exposed to. The lecture was based on the lecture series by Harvard professor Michael Sandel, titled “Justice with Michael Sandel”.
The lecture was kicked off by the classic tram example, wherein one is placed into a hypothetical position of being a tram driver. The tram would be hurtling down the rails towards five railway workers, working on the track, not knowing their impending doom. And the driver would then have the choice of pulling a lever, changing the direction of the tram, towards another track with only one worker, who would then lose his life. After a discussion with the students, they are offered a slightly modified situation. Here instead of being the driver, they would be simply an onlooker, observing the impending accident while standing on a bridge, directly over the tracks. And the only choice they would now have would be to push another onlooker, standing next to you on the bridge. This would then halt the tram, sparing the five workers life. As expected, varying responses came from the students. Issues of ‘risk’, ‘morality’ and ‘guilt’ were discussed. And the students were introduced to the underlying theories of consequentialist versus categorical moral reasoning.
Similar examples were discussed, such as the real-life case of The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens of 1884 and the Ford Pinto case of the 1970s. The intention was to drive home the fact common economic tools like ‘utility’ and ‘cost-benefit analysis’ may not always be just nor moral. And an alternative for Jeremy Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism was offered. The theory of libertarianism. Which is the philosophy of upholding liberty. Libertarians believe that three basic human rights which are life, liberty and property must always be upheld.
To conclude, the event was set out to question the moral reasons that govern their decision making. And to provide them a dialogue through which they might question one other for the same. Finally, the research cell hopes, that the event has instilled in them a curiosity to venture further into the philosophy behind the economics of every day
.
Comments