Michael Laycock was definitely one of the best teachers that ever graced the education system. As a graduate of 06, this video doesn't do him the justice he deserves, let alone capture the spirit he emanated in every lesson, whether formal or impromptu. There will be none like him, and none can replace him. He talked and acted with impertinence and eloquence that can be only compared to Churchill or greater, and his legacy will be a mark on that school, which I sincerely hope is honoured by those that he taught, those that thought they were in charge, and all those that procede him.
I enjoyed parts of this video essay although there are some questions and concerns that I have in regards to the moral thoughts of the writer (who I assume is Naomi Tull). I will get some smaller nitpicks out of the way first so as they do not muddle my intention of questioning the several moral quandaries. The stock photos of strangers on the train tracks and the following grave are pretty visually lazy and uninteresting. The student in that scene and who talks afterwards does some great hand acting but could do some better face acting. Additionally, the wind messing with the audio in the trolley problem's introduction was a bit irritating. With that being said, I'm not sure if Naomi had memorised her script or is just fantastic at eye contact and focal point but good job on her part. Mentioning global warming as a whole. Not only do geographers, environmental scientists, and climatologists more commonly use the term climate change, the whole idea is incredibly flawed. I won't get into the specifics here but I highly recommend to check out the works of Dr. Michael Crichton and Climategate 2009. These of course are for elaboration and insight on some of the frankly stupid aspects of climate change speculation and believing to a worrying extent. Finally, of the three issues in the world you mentioned to highlight, I am shocked that Jacinda Arden dropping out of being PM of New Zealand was not one of those three (joking of course, there are worse things in the world). The first major moral issue comes with the alternative five patients and one donor problem. Just reading into the base dilemma is very problematic. If one doctor had the aforementioned patients all of which need a life saving transplant by the next day there are some problems that arise. Firstly, unless there is some rare tragedy which allows for these conditions to exist, people don't just find out that they need a transplant in one day or else they die. More often than not where a person would be in the situation where a transplant would eventually be needed, the transplant is what the medical professionals desire least as an outcome. Transplants pose a serious health risk for not just the donor but the recipient as well. One of the organs listed in the dilemma, the heart, has low survival rates in the first year of donation. The same can be said for most organ transplants. One's quality of life becomes dramatically threatened. Additionally, there are often priorities for those who are more needing for certain donations. If people are in such an unfortunate state where they will die the next day and in the potential months leading up to this could not get a successful operation let alone transplant, it's sad to say but there is no hope for them. Onto to matter of killing a person for the operations. The problem with this stupid decision is the biology in how the human body reacts to foreign tissues and substances. A recipient's body rejecting a donor organ is a very real possibility that happens more often than do successful transplants. All of this in addition to the fact that any, but likely all, of the recipients will die regardless of if they receive the transplants. By logic and scientific relevance alone this dilemma is incredibly flawed. There is a single decision to be made and that is to let the five people die, they would of unfortunately had it coming for weeks if not more by this point. By 'pulling the lever' and killing the man for the organs, one is essentially killing six people while also conducting medical malpractice. Even if that man was the most heinous criminal in your city, your career as a doctor and your life would be over. One final thing; visually it would have been nicer to maybe include pictures of the actual organs rather than the extremely low quality stock photos. Or maybe incorporate and overarching image to go along with your explanation of the dilemma. Going back to the original trolley problem, the focus on utilitarianism is problematic at face value. Of course without looking deeply into it the majority of people would choose for one to die rather than five. Of course, the classic counter-argument is that by pulling the lever you are committing murder whereas not pulling it you are just left with survivors guilt. The problem with thinking that not pulling the lever leaves the blood on your hands is the simple fact that you are an observer and not a participant. Consider this analogy: You are trapped in a room with six other people. One of these people has a gun and so do you. This other person will shoot and kill every person in that room and once they get to you they will be arrested by police who have just now entered the room. On the other hand you can shoot and kill this person before they kill anyone. While seeming a lot more intense, this problem and the trolley problem are one in the same. In killing this person before they do anything, you are a murderer even though more lives have been saved. On the other hand, being paralysed with fear and watching people die fearing for your own you are a victim and not at fault. Looking beyond utilitarianism one can see how this dilemma becomes much more clear cut. A rule of the individual is key here as in this situation, as with any, you may not be entirely sure of the context and thus must act rationally. Before moving on there is also a pet peeve that I have with the trolley problem as a whole. That being the fact that the vessel of doom is a trolley. Have you seen a trolley? Not only are they not very large they also move quite slowly. They also are most often found in urban or community areas where there will be plenty of civilians in attendance. In no well developed country with urban trolleys should a situation occur where six people are tied to the tracks. The scene with Naomi covered in blood at the door is pretty fantastic, especially since she modifies the dilemma to a more appropriate train rather than a trolley. Although she could be a bit more exaggerated with her face and vocal acting. Regardless kudos to the great scene, the cut to the shocked face afterwards is especially nice. Pretty much the rest of the video that came after the organ donor dilemma was incredibly well made, albeit for the several technical and filmmaking issues. The stock images joke was also a nice touch. Overall, I really don't want to come across as mean with the exceedingly long complaining about the imperfections of the script and craft of this video essay. While there is definitely room for improvement, this video essay was very well done. Greetings from Ontario, Canada!
Noscars are great because it acts as a gateway for developing filmmakers to keep going. Seeing their film played on a big screen fills them with such inspiration and ideas for what may be in their future.
