哈佛公开课comment

The public lessons of Harvard are really good means of spreading knowledge and wisdom and inspiring human’s mind. When I listened to these lessons, my mind was always in an active condition. The professor was good at raising questions and
giving examples very much, besides, more important, he could change certain premise of these questions with facility so that these questions were always changing and then students’ mind was changing as well. Moreover, students were also active and good at expounding their own opinions.
However, it is an interesting phenomenon in China that when the professor raises a question and asks students who agree or who disagree, most students would raise their hands up. But when the professor asks someone to explain why he agrees or why he disagrees, they always lower their heads and keep silent so the professor has to appoint someone. Therefore, Chinese students should be trained to expound their opinions boldly. When I listened to the lessons, I would always think about the questions the professor raised with my inherent values. Then I listened how those students expound their views and tried to prove my own opinions. So I think that listening to the public lessons of Harvard benefits me a lot.
From the lessons themselves, what impressed me most is Bentham’s version of utilitarianism. Because in this lesson, I thought a lot and I have a clear view about it. No matter what those students said and the professor said, I insisted on my own opinion all the time. As far as I am concerned, everyone is equal especially in terms of life. No one has the right to deprive other’s life without consent. Bentham’s version of utilitarianism argues that whether personal or political, morality is to maximize the general welfare, or the collective happiness or the overall balance of pleasure over pain, but how about the minority.
When there are only three people, we can say that the one is minority. But when the number of people is very large and there diverges two parts---one is majority, the other is minority. In this situation, the minority represents a large number of people. Could we sacrifice the minority’s interests to fulfill that of the majority’s? The answer is no. When it is connected to life, it will be absolutely wrong. Someone will argue that when the situation is special and people have to make a decision and solve the problem, it is allowed in morality to sacrifice the minority’s interests. What if the minority do not agree to sacrifice? Without the minority’s consent, I also think that murder is murder. To sacrifice is not everyone’s obligation just related to morality. If the situation is emergency, we can say that those minorities who volunteer to sacrifice are noble in minority. But if they are not voluntary, we cannot condemn that they are immoral. After all, it is not their obligation to sacrifice. In a word, we should respect everyone’s freedom in the choice of sacrificing or not.
The reason why the lessons of Harvard are attractive is that the professor raises many interesting questions and let students make their own choices. As the questions change, it is more difficult to make a choice. Besides, the professor let students reply each other’s opinions. By this way, he brings out the philosophical ideas. I think that the way of teaching should be advocated in China. Students should be encouraged to have their free thoughts not be poured into stiff philosophical ideas. Philosophy comes from lives. We should comprehend philosophy from the attitude to typical matters in real life.。