Jim's Moral Theory: The Case Of Jim

Philosophers attempt to answer arduous questions about the morality of certain actions if they were to be performed by justifying whether different theories can be applied to certain situations. In the text, Moral Theory: An Introduction, the case of Jim is a hypothetical situation that questions the morality of one’s actions that can be rationalized by two theories, classical act utilitarianism and rule consequentialism.

In this case, the captain of a military group captured twenty Indians who are rebelling against the government. To teach them a lesson he is going to execute all twenty individuals. Jim accidently finds himself in the presence of the captain who views Jim as an honored guest. The captain presents Jim with the opportunity of killing one of the Indians and if he performs the act of intentionally killing one individual, then the captain will release the other nineteen captives. However, if Jim does not take the

In other words, it means an action is only right if and only if and because the action will produce at least the maximizing outcome when compared to performing a different action at that time. Act utilitarianism is expressed only by actions with pleasurable results and the avoidance of any actions consequences that revolve around pain. In order to thoroughly understand act utilitarianism there are five fundamental elements that outline the significance of this theory. First, it is direct; the action is right or wrong due to the actual action’s consequences. Second, it follows a maximizing version of right conduct and yields the greatest value of right action. Next, it encompasses a welfarist theory and is universalist, meaning that all individuals will be considered when deciding the actions outcome. Lastly, it follows an impartialist model; all persons are equal when an action results in the same size benefit or loss to an