In considering how different ethical philosophers would explain the actions of a person who steals food to feed a starving child , the Nineteenth Century Western Philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873 ), Modern Western Philospher, Immanuel Kant ( 1724-1804) and Medieval, Islamic Philospher Al-Ghazâlî (1056–1111) are examined. All three ethicists belonged to diverse types of ethics, namely Utilitarianism (Mill), Deontological Ethics (Kant) and Divine Command Ethics (Al-Ghazâlî). To understand each ethicists position on whether they believe it is morally acceptable to steal food for a starving child, it is necessary to firstly contemplate their theories on the morality of the situation, then assess what their personal response would be based on their teachings to determine if they would deem the action acceptable or suggest an alternative solution.
John Stuart …show more content…
If Mill 's had the choice of stealing food to give to a starving child his response would firstly address the question if stealing is conflicting with moral or society 's rules which is his secondary principle. As theft is against moral rules, and the answer is yes this does conflict with those rules, the next part of Mill 's response would consider the his first formula of utility, otherwise known as the first principle. (Schefczyk, n.d)
As the first formula of promoting the greatest happiness and least suffering equals the starving child, and not the victim of theft, this overrides the second principle of morality. This response could be argued further by critics of Mill 's that if everyone who had a starving child to feed, broke the law and stole food then that would promote much more unhappiness in society than feeding one child.
In direct opposition to Mill 's consequentialist theories and reasoning are philosophers that followed deontological, or duty based ethics such as Immanuel
John Stuart …show more content…
If Mill 's had the choice of stealing food to give to a starving child his response would firstly address the question if stealing is conflicting with moral or society 's rules which is his secondary principle. As theft is against moral rules, and the answer is yes this does conflict with those rules, the next part of Mill 's response would consider the his first formula of utility, otherwise known as the first principle. (Schefczyk, n.d)
As the first formula of promoting the greatest happiness and least suffering equals the starving child, and not the victim of theft, this overrides the second principle of morality. This response could be argued further by critics of Mill 's that if everyone who had a starving child to feed, broke the law and stole food then that would promote much more unhappiness in society than feeding one child.
In direct opposition to Mill 's consequentialist theories and reasoning are philosophers that followed deontological, or duty based ethics such as Immanuel