To kill or let live will explore the utilitarian views of John Stuart Mill, as well as the deontological views of Immanuel Kant on the thought experiment derived from British Philosopher Philippa Foot. Foot had great influence in the advancement of the naturalistic point of view of moral philosophy. The exploration of Philippa Foot’s Rescue I and Rescue II scenarios will provide the different views on moral philosophy through the eyes of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant.
John Stuart Mill’s moral belief centers around utilitarianism; utilitarianism basically states that actions are morally right if the produce the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people. Immanuel Kant’s moral belief centers around deontology or the obligation
In Foot’s scenario Rescue I, Kant’s use of the first version of categorical imperative says it would be ok to let the one individual perish to save the party of five. In this case the maxim or the subjective principle of volition, could be viewed as it would be ok to let the one person perish to save the party of five, because there is no act of killing the one individual, but merely allowing the one individual to perish; therefore, the one individual is not being used as a means to kill, he is merely a consequence of the rational choice to save the lives of the party of
John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian belief that the moral thing to do is that which creates the greatest amount of happiness to greatest number of people, as well as, Immanuel Kant’s belief that murder is always morally wrong. In Rescue II, where the one individual is trapped on the path leading to the party of the five that need to be rescued; John Stuart Mill would suggest running over the one individual to save the party of five. His belief that saving the party of five would create the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number people or vice versa; that saving the party of five would create the least amount of suffering to the least amount of people is absurd. While John Stuart Mill has a great point with his views; this is still considered murder and or killing. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of one human being by another; and according to Immanuel Kant, the majority of the population, and the laws it is morally wrong. I concur that Immanuel Kant’s belief that murder is morally wrong. Kant says “I cannot, therefore, dispose in any way of a man in my own person so as to mutilate him, to damage or kill him” (Kant). This statement does in fact coincide with one of universal law. In no way, shape, or form would it be acceptable to murder one individual to save the lives of the party of five. Making the choice to prioritize the value of one individual’s life over
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. The Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. Print.
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
Philippa Foot starts her piece with a description of hypothetical imperatives, presumably in order to contrast them with categorical imperatives. She uses the classic Kantian description that a hypothetical imperative is a means to an end, not an end in itself. So the “ought” of a hypothetical imperative says that we ought to do something only because we want something else. Categorical imperatives, on the other hand, ought to be followed as an end in themselves and have a special rational authority — a “special dignity” (160). Foot wants to know why that could be. She wants to know what aspect of categorical imperatives gives them their special importance. In this pieces, she explores two common explanations,
From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.
"Ethical utilitarianism can most generally be described as the principle that states that the rightness or wrongness of action is determined by the goodness and badness of their consequences." (Utilitarianism EOP 9: 603.) Following this guide line the morally right decision to make is to rescue the group with five ...
If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
Immanuel Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher whose ideas redefined philosophical views of morality and justice, and provided a base for modern philosophers to argue these ideas. In Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, he argues against Hume’s idea of utilitarianism. Kant also explores the idea of freedom, free action, moral action, and how to determine if our actions are moral by use of the categorical imperative.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
Kant’s moral philosophy is very direct in its justification of human rights, especially the ideals of moral autonomy and equality as applied to rational human beings. John Stuart Mills’ theory of utilitarianism also forms a solid basis for human rights, especially his belief that utility is the supreme criterion for judging morality, with justice being subordinate to it. The paper looks at how the two philosophers qualify their teachings as the origins of human rights, and comes to the conclusion that the moral philosophy of Kant is better than that of Mills. Emmanuel Kant Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons, regardless of their individual desires or partial interests.
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.