Read the following thought experiment from Philippa Foot and then write an essay that answers the questions that follow:
“Let us consider […] a pair of cases which I shall call Rescue I and Rescue II. In the first Rescue story we are hurrying in our jeep to save some people – let there be five of them – who are imminently threatened by the ocean tide. We have not a moment to spare, so when we hear of a single person who also needs rescuing from some other disaster we say regretfully that we cannot rescue him, but must leave him to die. To most of us this seems clear […]. This is Rescue I and with it I contrast Rescue II. In this second story we are again hurrying to the place where the tide is coming in in order to rescue the party of people, but this time it is relevant that the road is narrow and rocky. In this version the lone individual is trapped (do not ask me how) on the path. If we are to rescue the five we would have to drive over him. But can we do so? If we stop he will be all right eventually: he is in no danger unless from us. But of course all five of the others will be drowned. As in the first story our choice is between a course of action which will leave one man dead and five alive at the end of the day and a course of action which will have the opposite result. (Philippa Foot, “Killing and Letting Die,” from Abortion and Legal Perspectives, eds. Garfield and Hennessey, 2004, University of Massachusetts Press)
1. What would Mill tell the rescuer to do, in Rescue I and Rescue II, according to his theory of utilitarianism? Be clear in explaining Mill’s recommendation, and how he would justify it. In doing so, you must include a discussion of the following:
o The Principle of Utility and how it would specifically apply in this situation—who gets “counted” and how?
2. What would Kant tell the rescuer to do, in Rescue I and Rescue II, according to his deontological theory? Be clear in explaining Kant’s recommendation and how he would justify it. In doing so, you must include a discussion of the following:
o The first version of the Categorical Imperative and how it would specifically apply in these two situations (hint, you have to say what the maxim would be and what duty would be generated according to it).
o The second version of the Categorical Imperative and how it would specifically apply in this situation.
3. Explain one criticism of both Mill and Kant. Afterward, argue for which ethical approach, on your view is superior. Be specific and provide reasons for your claim.
How do we resolve ethical dilemmas? It varies from person to person, and in this case, it varies from philosopher to philosopher. We can really dissect the differing schools of thought when we look at the thought experiment from Philippa Foot. Mill and Kant had differing beliefs which is crucial to note, so we can distinguish the answers and the morals involved in the Philippa Foot thought experiment.
What would Mill’s decision be? I believe that Mill’s decisions would focus on the net happiness gained from the decision, so in both Rescue I and Rescue II, he would advocate for the rescuer to save the five people at the cost of the one person. Utilitarianism to Mill can be described as the ideology that considers the “theory of life” as the “foundation of morals” (CW Robson Volume 10, 210). Mill’s utilitarian values urge him to account for not his happiness alone but all happiness. In addition, utilitarianism is not focused on the moral motives associated with an action, but in utilitarianism, the morality of action only depends on the positives of its result only.
However, this is different to a form of hedonism that states pleasure as a homogeneous matter. Mill felt that there were types of pleasure that held more value than others considering their inherent qualities. His specific belief is usually called “qualitative hedonism” (Feiser and Dowden 2). Qualitative hedonism is usually perceived as a belief with no consistent stance Hedonism also claims that pleasure is the only true value, and many critics argue that there is no possible scale or distinction to judge the levels of pleasures. It differs from the principle of utility which states “that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain” (White 1). Mill’s utilitarianism and hedonism only worries about the majority or the five people, so they are the sole feelings that are accounted for. In the end, their five amounts of happiness and glee is more than just the one.
Where is the principle of utility? The principle of utility is a misty subject because there are questions that are left with either no answer or more than one answer. Hedonists believe that what people pursue in life is the pleasure, and if there is no pleasure, there is pain. Yet, what is pleasure? What is pain? Pleasure can be sexual and more biological, but then it can also be as simple as playing a game or talking to a friend. Pain can be physical and excruciating, but it can also be depression or disappointment. If we delve deeper, we can infer that saving the larger group of people will account for more happiness or “pleasure” for everyone. Thus, Mill would advocate for the rescuer to save the five people rather than a single person because of how utilitarianism emphasizes the face-value benefits more than morality.
Next, what would Kant’s decision be? Kant’s deontological ethics forbids him in acting against the most moral method, so in Rescue I Kant would advocate for the rescuer to abandon the single person and save the other five. However, in Rescue II, Kant would not save the five people in need, and he would spare the one person trapped on the road at the cost of the other five. To clarify, Kant’s deontological ethics means that people are morally obligated to act for not necessarily the best outcome but for the most moral and ethical one.
Kant’s moral theory focuses on the human being’s ability to rationalize or have the mental capacity for rationality. It is what separates humans from other animals as no other animal can act on thought and reason. It is also the sole reason why Kant believes that humans act on morals. In deontology, the actions are always judged separately from their results. This may confuse some people because the act can be morally wrong, but there can be unexpected or expected consequences that are beneficial. However, in deontological ideology, you have to choose the choice that fits the set moral principles. In Rescue I, Kant would urge the rescuer to save the other five people other than the one because the rescuer has a moral obligation to save the five people. You were heading towards them to save them first and losing one life is better than losing five. However, in Rescue II, the reason why Kant would save the one person instead of the five is because in the moral principles we hold it is morally wrong to murder someone for five other people. In this case, Kant would justify leaving five for dead and save one because despite the beneficial outcomes of murdering the single person for five it is inherently wrong to intentionally kill someone.
Similarly to all moral theories, there are many principles involved, and in this case, Kant’s categorical imperative is exactly that. It is a moral law that is absolute for all agents or the people who have the ability to act morally. If we examine the first formulation of the imperative, the idea is very similar to the Golden Rule; for example, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 124). Kant affirms that a true moral argument must not be affected or related to any conditions which include the identity of the agent. Any maxim should be disconnected from any condition, and it should also be applicable to all rational thinkers/humans. It is also important for people to not act on any maxims that can lead to contradictions. This is easily applicable to the thought activity. For example, in Rescue I and II, the maxim would be the first formulation of the categorical imperative or similar to the Golden Rule. However, it is different from the Golden Rule because the Golden Rule is more empirical in that it requires context to work. The duty that would result from it is choosing the best way to follow the maxim and not create any contradictions.
Moreover, Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative is a derivative of the first one in the sense that people shouldn’t use others or themselves as tools for an end. To summarize the second version of the categorical imperative, Kant stated in his Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end.” Furthermore, we cannot treat each other as a stepping stone to an end, and this is inferred from the second formulation of the categorical imperative. In summary, a person must uphold their own moral maxim and perfect duty to choose the best path that creates an end that is fair for all people including the agent. In Rescue I and II, the maxim is not using people as stepping stones for an end and the duty is to uphold that to create the moral end. In Rescue II, it would contradict Kant’s beliefs to save the five people with the sacrifice of the one. Kant’s categorical imperatives are key to further understand his own maxims in the thought experiment.
To conclude, I prefer Mill’s utilitarianism to be the superior moral system. Even though it risks causing humans to behave in unjust ways, I still hold that it provides a better means of meeting moral dilemmas. When it is life-and-death, I can rely on Mill’s utilitarianism, but I cannot rely on Kantian deontology to provide what I think is a reasonable solution. The issues with Kantian deontology are too difficult for me to admire without contradictions. However, utilitarianism is more flexible. Under Mill’s philosophy, every individual’s happiness matters, and their happiness is supposed to be weighted equally. In Rescue II, I would normally choose to save the five while sacrificing the one, but I think it is possible as well to rationalize sparing the one at the cost of the five if I consider my happiness and the happiness of others who could somehow relate to the situation down the line. What if all five of those who would perish were criminals? What if the man I would have to drive over was a renowned community leader and samaritans? If I am unsure of the history or identities of the people involved, would I be at fault for my assumptions? Regardless, utilitarianism, provides a reasonable moral philosophy, as well as one that is flexible and adaptable enough for most purposes. As a result, I consider Mill’s utilitarianism the superior moral philosophy.
Alexander, Larry, and Michael Moore. “Deontological Ethics.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 17 Oct. 2016, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/.
Brown, D. G. “What Is Mill's Principle of Utility?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1 Sept. 1973, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40230419?seq=1.
“Categorical Imperative.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 15 Nov. 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative.
“CLASSICAL UTILITARIANISM.” PRINCIPLE OF UTILITY, http://faculty.msj.edu/whiter/UTILITY.htm.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H2.
Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. “Kant's Moral Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 7 July 2016, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/.
KANT, IMMANUEL. GROUNDWORK FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS. OXFORD UNIV PRESS, 2019.
“Kantian Ethics.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Nov. 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics#cite_note-24.
MILL, JOHN STUART. UTILITARIANISM. ALPHA EDITIONS, 2018.
“Online Library of Liberty.” Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 Vols. - Online Library of Liberty, https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/mill-collected-works-of-john-stuart-mill-in-33-vols.
Sevenpillarsinstitute.org, https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics/.
SparkNotes, SparkNotes, https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utilitarianism/section3/.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Categorical Imperative.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 Dec. 2017, https://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative.