Mr. Schwartz

I am beginning to watch Michael Sandel’s lecture series on morality and justice. The first lecture establishes the difference between consequentialist and categorical morality by using various moral dilemmas requiring the sacrifice of one life to save several lives. Consequentialism holds that the morality of an action is determined by the outcome. Categorical morality holds that certain rules are inviolable.

Sandel explains Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy, which is based on moral intuition. The moral course of action maximizes the amount of good relative to the amount of suffering. Bentham posits this as both a personal and political philosophy. This philosophy can be summarized as “the greatest good for the greatest number”.

Sandel goes on to apply this philosophy to a famous legal case: The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884). The facts of the case are as follows: Dudley captioned a ship with two crew members and a cabin boy. The ship sank and the four men escaped on a lifeboat. They ran out of food and starved for eight days. The cabin boy drank sea water and seemed to be dying. Three weeks into the ordeal, Dudley killed the cabin boy, and then three men survived by eating his remains. They were rescued, and when they returned to England, they were put on trial.

Was Dudley’s action moral?

The class discussion focuses on the necessity of the action and the consent of the cabin boy. Then it turns to a question of lottery: If the sacrifice was based on a consentual lottery, would it create a moral situation? It also raises the issue of contractual obligations, which I think is an important aspect of answering questions about moral dilemmas of this sort. Sandel also raises the idea that extending the scope of the question is important in terms of the wider consequences of the action. He then proposes three core questions:

1. Do we have fundamental rights?
2. Does a fair procedure justify any result?
3. What role does consent play in moral questions?

Michael Sandel: Justice Lecture 1

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) (The lifeboat case)

Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation (1780)

J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)

Discussion Guide, Advanced – Episode 1

What Makes a Great Teacher?

Amanda Ripley

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/01/what-makes-a-great-teacher/7841/

Things that you might think would help a new teacher achieve success in a poor school—like prior experience working in a low-income neighborhood—don’t seem to matter. Other things that may sound trifling—like a teacher’s extracurricular accomplishments in college—tend to predict greatness…

First, great teachers tended to set big goals for their students. They were also perpetually looking for ways to improve their effectiveness. For example, when Farr called up teachers who were making remarkable gains and asked to visit their classrooms, he noticed he’d get a similar response from all of them: “They’d say, ‘You’re welcome to come, but I have to warn you—I am in the middle of just blowing up my classroom structure and changing my reading workshop because I think it’s not working as well as it could.’ When you hear that over and over, and you don’t hear that from other teachers, you start to form a hypothesis.” Great teachers, he concluded, constantly reevaluate what they are doing.Superstar teachers had four other tendencies in common: they avidly recruited students and their families into the process; they maintained focus, ensuring that everything they did contributed to student learning; they planned exhaustively and purposefully—for the next day or the year ahead—by working backward from the desired outcome; and they worked relentlessly, refusing to surrender to the combined menaces of poverty, bureaucracy, and budgetary shortfalls.

But when Farr took his findings to teachers, they wanted more. “They’d say, ‘Yeah, yeah. Give me the concrete actions. What does this mean for a lesson plan?’” So Farr and his colleagues made lists of specific teacher actions that fell under the high-level principles they had identified. For example, one way that great teachers ensure that kids are learning is to frequently check for understanding: Are the kids—all of the kids—following what you are saying?