This week I started my online class on political philosophy and justice. In the first lecture, the professor introduced the difference between consequentialist vs. categorical moral reasoning by presenting multiple scenarios where the majority of the class would subscribe to either one camp. Then with minor alterations, the majority would switch to the other. In the next three lectures, he introduced the moral philosophy of utilitarianism, which is a concept I’d heard of previously but always thought was just about equality. One of the most interesting parts of the lectures was when he talked about cost-benefit analysis. He presented the case of the Ford Pinto exploding rear engines, which was weirdly something I’d heard about before from my dad. He explained how the cost-benefit analysis attempted to put a dollar amount on human life. This case study raised many questions, such as whether or not cost-benefit decisions can be made without quantifying human life, or if there are certain rights of humans that can under no conditions be violated. At the same time, utilitarianism is uniquely respectful of the opinions of the individual: each individual’s preference is weighted the same in the “common currency” that results when cost-benefit analysis is applied. Relating the lectures back to my original topic of the U.S. court system, I definitely connected the points about cost-benefit and quantifying human life to the monetary aspects of the criminal justice system such as bail, and the use of torture such as solitary confinement. In terms of the law, utilitarianism governs a lot of U.S. policies, especially trade regulations that trade certain levels of safety for conveniences and monetary gain.