我知道大家平时都去网易公开课看，但是推荐去edX，原版感觉更好不是吗？http://www.edxonline.org/

我整理了一下笔记，大家和我一起看看？
Wk 1the moral side of murder
Moral reasoning
• Consequentialist moral reasoning –
Locates morality in the consequences of an act in the stateof the world that will result from the thing you do
The right thing to do, the moral thing to do depends on theconsequences that will result from your action
• Utilitarianism
• Jeremy Bentham—18C English political philosopher
• The idea: the right things todo, the just things to do is to maximize utility
• Utility: the balance ofpleasure over pain, happiness over suffering
• What the law should be:
The right thing to do individually or collectively is tomaximize the overall level of happiness
“The greatest good for the greatest number”
• Categorical –
Locates morality in certain duties and rights (absolutemoral requirements), regardless the consequences (there are certain things thatcategorically wrong, even if they bring about a good result)
• Immanuel Kant—18C Germanphilosopher
• The contrast betweenconsequentialist moral reasoning and categorical moral reasoning

Wk 2the case for cannibalism
The Queen V Dudley and Stevens
• marine perils, Cannibalism
• Defenses:
• Necessity
• Numbers matter: so if added up,the balance of happiness and suffering, they did the right thing
• Objections:
• what they did is categoricallywrong—Murder is murder, is always wrong, even if it increases the overallhappiness of society
• Why murder is categoricallywrong?
• Questions raised:
1. Do we have certain fundamentalrights?
• Where those rights came from,if not from some idea of the larger welfare, utility or happiness?
2. Does a fair procedure justifyany result?
• A lottery (a fair procedure)will make a difference?
• That is not a categoricalobjection exactly
• Everybody has to be counted asequal even though at the end of the day one can be sacrificed for the general
3. What is the moral work ofconsent?
• The basic idea of consent
• If the victim had agreedhimself, and not under duress, then it will be alright to take his life to savethe rest
• Why does an effective consentmakes such a moral difference that an act of taking a life will be wrongwithout consent and is morally permissible with consent?