We must consider the following thought experiment from Phillipa Foot, to fully understand the moral theories of deontology and utilitarianism through the ideas of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill: “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
…show more content…
Happiness is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, the happiness of everyone, not just yourself is what matters most, an act of consequentialism. The goal is to seek the greatest happiness from the greatest number. This is known as the principle of utility. This does not mean we always have to be motivated to promote the greatest outcome for the greatest number, we’re more likely to achieve the best outcome if we’re not actually aiming for it. Utilitarianism is a standard of rightness, rather than a guide for action. John Stuart Mill is a philosopher who strongly advocates for the ideas of utilitarianism. Mill contends that things like virtue, power, fame, and money can be parts of happiness and not just means to happiness. Obviously, virtue, power, fame, and money are not feelings or things in the mind. Mill plainly and rightly thinks that people want such things; they don't want merely the belief or feeling that they have them. Happiness is thus not merely a …show more content…
What is the rescuers moral duty? Deontology focuses on whether the action is moral or immoral depending on your moral duties. A common law of deontology is “do not kill”, with, I believe that it is okay to save the five people and leave the one person to die. Because you are not directly killing this person by leaving them to die it is justified. If the rescuer believes that it is morally right to do so, and he will allow everyone else to do so, then he is applying the first version of categorical imperative. But I am confused in the theory of deontology because in the second version of the categorical imperative, it states that we must not treat people as means. By saving the five people on the tide, rather than saving the one person, wouldn’t we be treating the one person as a means? In the second story, I believe that Kant would tell the rescuer to not save anyone. In this situation, the rescuer is directly killing one person to save the five others. It is not morally right to kill anyone, no matter the situation so it is best for the rescuer to not save anyone. A common criticism for utilitarianism is that utilitarianism is too demanding and requires you to always be thinking of everyone else. In the rescue situation, it will never consider the danger that may be inflicted on the rescuer. What if he is killed while rescuing the five individuals? According to utilitarianism,
Happiness is the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, the happiness of everyone, not just yourself is what matters most, an act of consequentialism. The goal is to seek the greatest happiness from the greatest number. This is known as the principle of utility. This does not mean we always have to be motivated to promote the greatest outcome for the greatest number, we’re more likely to achieve the best outcome if we’re not actually aiming for it. Utilitarianism is a standard of rightness, rather than a guide for action. John Stuart Mill is a philosopher who strongly advocates for the ideas of utilitarianism. Mill contends that things like virtue, power, fame, and money can be parts of happiness and not just means to happiness. Obviously, virtue, power, fame, and money are not feelings or things in the mind. Mill plainly and rightly thinks that people want such things; they don't want merely the belief or feeling that they have them. Happiness is thus not merely a …show more content…
What is the rescuers moral duty? Deontology focuses on whether the action is moral or immoral depending on your moral duties. A common law of deontology is “do not kill”, with, I believe that it is okay to save the five people and leave the one person to die. Because you are not directly killing this person by leaving them to die it is justified. If the rescuer believes that it is morally right to do so, and he will allow everyone else to do so, then he is applying the first version of categorical imperative. But I am confused in the theory of deontology because in the second version of the categorical imperative, it states that we must not treat people as means. By saving the five people on the tide, rather than saving the one person, wouldn’t we be treating the one person as a means? In the second story, I believe that Kant would tell the rescuer to not save anyone. In this situation, the rescuer is directly killing one person to save the five others. It is not morally right to kill anyone, no matter the situation so it is best for the rescuer to not save anyone. A common criticism for utilitarianism is that utilitarianism is too demanding and requires you to always be thinking of everyone else. In the rescue situation, it will never consider the danger that may be inflicted on the rescuer. What if he is killed while rescuing the five individuals? According to utilitarianism,