When first reading the experiment in regards to rescue I and rescues II, I did not like or want to make a choice, and really, I do not have to make a choice. My job is to tell you what Stuart Mill would do and what Immanuel Kant would do based on their philosophical views of utilitarianism and categorical imperatives respectfully. In Rescue I & II Mill. Utilitarianism is the basic principle to look at what is right and wrong. Depending on the consequences or the outcomes you can select the course of action not which is in your own best interest, but that which takes into account the best interest of others. Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves
…show more content…
Now, let’s look at what Mill would do in our situation. So not only are we wanting to make a choice that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The greatest number is for all that will be affected by the decision that is made. Mill's greatest happiness (principle utility) means that we should choose the option that will give them the most happiness. The problem is Mill believes that the best happiness is achieved when everyone is happy and there is an absence of pain and suffering. Mill believes that true happiness should be rational or ethical in nature. Physical happiness does not count as true happiness. Sometimes the pursuit of happiness or of human pleasures may result in pain as a result of sacrifices we consciously make. This is why I would say that Mill would save the five from the ocean tide and let the one die. I think these theories are easier to state than to follow through on. Like I stated earlier the Utilitarian theory is not hard to understand, but I find it difficult to put into action because saying to always choose which has the greatest utility or goodness is hard when you have to decide to save one person or five …show more content…
Kant believes that certain things are wrong like killing innocent people. I know we have to make a quick decision because the tide is rising and on Rescue II, we cannot go around the person because the road is narrow and rocky so, it is either drive over the one, go help rescue the 5 or do nothing. Kant would not save any of them because it would not be moral, not based on a wrong executed against others, but because the action cannot be applied universally. “A categorical imperative is an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. In our case not rendering assistance. Eventually, we would all need saving or assistance and if the maxim were to be applied categorically, we would all be left to die or denied the assistance we needed. If the categorical imperative were applied consistently then it would not violate reason or
Now, let’s look at what Mill would do in our situation. So not only are we wanting to make a choice that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. The greatest number is for all that will be affected by the decision that is made. Mill's greatest happiness (principle utility) means that we should choose the option that will give them the most happiness. The problem is Mill believes that the best happiness is achieved when everyone is happy and there is an absence of pain and suffering. Mill believes that true happiness should be rational or ethical in nature. Physical happiness does not count as true happiness. Sometimes the pursuit of happiness or of human pleasures may result in pain as a result of sacrifices we consciously make. This is why I would say that Mill would save the five from the ocean tide and let the one die. I think these theories are easier to state than to follow through on. Like I stated earlier the Utilitarian theory is not hard to understand, but I find it difficult to put into action because saying to always choose which has the greatest utility or goodness is hard when you have to decide to save one person or five …show more content…
Kant believes that certain things are wrong like killing innocent people. I know we have to make a quick decision because the tide is rising and on Rescue II, we cannot go around the person because the road is narrow and rocky so, it is either drive over the one, go help rescue the 5 or do nothing. Kant would not save any of them because it would not be moral, not based on a wrong executed against others, but because the action cannot be applied universally. “A categorical imperative is an unconditional moral obligation that is binding in all circumstances and is not dependent on a person's inclination or purpose. In our case not rendering assistance. Eventually, we would all need saving or assistance and if the maxim were to be applied categorically, we would all be left to die or denied the assistance we needed. If the categorical imperative were applied consistently then it would not violate reason or