When I first watch this course about Justice.I hardly understand what it is mean. I only learnt about the words "property","liberty" and "principle".When the second time ,I tried to follow Mr. Sandel's interpret. I found philosophy is such a miraculous subject and it full of contradiction which trigger me think.
I think the first class is the most interesting."The trolley car problem".This problem looks quiet easy but it involve morals opinion and other opinion I don't understand.Two cases,If askme this question,I can only say"The driver and the onlooker are not on a same location." But why we think the onlooker push the fat man is murder and the driver hit the one worker isn't belongs to murder.I can't explain it.Maybe there's no anwser.
Many of those problem like"Trolley car" impact me.It makes me think deeply.And maybe 'no anwser is the biggest charm of philosophy.I really learnt a lot in this course.
Liu Ruijie Class 3

Since human beings appeared,we started our journey of truth,seeking for what is just. Looking back to our whole history, any time,any nations,there are people hesitating, regretting,for what is the right thing to do when it happens. Stories like the trolly car accident may happen anytime.
Moral is something we create to torment us, and on the other hand we can't live without it. Maybe somebody may think that the phisology is useless,is a waste of time, why don't we live in a is pile way,why creating those annoyance to ourselves, but if we do live like that, what's the difference between human and beasts?
We are born witn the gift to think, to creat, so we are responced to create some values for the world. To be a miserable Socrates or to be a happy pig,I think all of us will choose the same answer. We are here in the world
We are here in the world, so we think, miserable canalso be a prove of existing, we are always on our way, seeking for the truth. Where our heart is, where the truth is. Just is what we think is just.
Zhao Jingwen Class5

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/

In the process of watching the Harvard open course, my biggest harvest, is not every question has a correct answer, the best is to have their own reasons and ideas. In the first lesson, the teacher talked about an example. The example has also previously heard of, also because chose that option does not bend and criticized as "cruel, inhumanity". However, in the class, the teacher encourage everyone to speak their own reason, why choose this answer, and no need to figure out what the correct answer is. Each of the "speaker" in the class speak closely reasoned and well argued, it has no wrong to points. I think, perhaps this is the reason why Harvard is an institutions of higher education. To be a thinking man, this is what I learned from the Harvard open course.
zusiqi class3

I really enjoy this class. It is useful and makes me know a lot .Perhaps someone would say:"It is too boring,let us watch the movies.Yes, that is funny.but not as usefui as this.
In this class,there are a lot of new words good sentences or points,yeah,that is so cool.WHY?Because they are the gifts for us.we took them down,step by step,we will become good-English-speakers,we will become wiser and wiser.
Thanks for the class, it changes me a lot.
I am really really like that,enjoy that!
Liuzihe-Class5,Grade8.

hehe....

Just, when I saw this word at the first time,my mind was filled with fuzzy. The open course "Ju-stice"may let me understand it. In the class, Mr.Sandel shows us lots of incredible and funn-y example which have been already happened in reality. But in every case, peple still have different opinion since now. I also think those problem, so that,I think I may know something about the just during suspecting. Although we can't get the just abosolutely, we can loo-k for the best way to solve the problem, that is really meaningful and worth trying. Then we may be much closer to the just. Just or un-just, it depend on you, I guess.

I think if I’m the driver of the trolly car,I would rather just kill the five than turn the steering wheel,cause if they’er working on the main track,they should have thought about this kind of accident.On the other hand,five people means five family,but one people,there are less people be sad about it,so it’s better to kill one people than killing the five.
The other case about organs,here is what I think:the healthy patient don’t know what’s happening,for he’s taking a nap and waking up and find himself in heaven.He don’t know this that he’s organs will be take out to save five people’s life,maybe he would like to secrifice himself to save others,but anyway we should tell him this,at least let him know what will happen to him. bhsf 初二2李雨涵

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?

Work 3整个被和谐了，抱歉了

我再试一次，
Wk 3putting a price tag on life
The utilitarian philosophyJeremy Bentham
• The highest principle ofmorality whether personal or political morality is to maximize the generalwelfare or the collect happiness or the overall balance of pleasure over pain,in a phrase, maximize utility
• The line of reasoning:
We are all given by pain and pleasure, so any moral systemhas to take account of them
How best take account? By maximizing
This leads to the principle of the great good for thegreatest number
• What exactly should wemaximize? Happiness, one more precisely精确的 utility
Maximize utility is a principle not only for individualsbut also for communities and for legislators

吧主是谁啊，到现在也不清楚

Philosophers are easily to be thought as mental by common people, just because they are always trying to come up with a reasonable solution to something that seems so ridiculous and naive.
But a example of the trolley car problem just explains that even though it is something ordinary, it is still not easy to deal with when we consider it deeply. We are confused, to let the one sacrifice for the five? Though looking at the consequence is that we saved more lives, but judging by the behavior itself, it just seems wrong, he didn't choose to die, and so didn't the five. However if we just let nature takes it is own course which might be the best way in a lot of situations, the one person is not involved, totally innocent, the five workers are just happen to be the wrong place at the wrong time, maybe it's supposed to happen this way.
On the other hand, watching the five people die when you can actually change it is cruel. So that's why we have consequential and categorical moral reasoning. May be this kind of problems are meant not to be solved perfectly, but thinking it, the progress is inviting and provoking a new way of seeing. And that's what this course is about, awaken the restlessness of reason and to see where it might lead.
Qi Yaxin Class 3