I believe that rule utilitarianism is better than kantianism because it is reasonable to assume consequences and humans are too complex to strictly follow the categorical imperative. Although utilitarianism could use some work, the basic principles of the theory are much more practical to apply to the real world compared to kantianism. Utilitarianism and kantianism are both normative moral theories as they are methods of decision-making rules that apply principles for the right and wrong of actions. Using each of these methods, I will explain each theory rational in deciding what action Jim should take in this situation. For a utilitarian, the morally right act for Jim to do would be to kill the one person to save himself and the others. In
…show more content…
It is a simple use of an equation for a utilitarian (53). This equation helps determine “utility,” which is whatever produces happiness; happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. Jim’s motive does not matter. The only entity that matters is considering each agent, or person, in this situation and how much happiness they will gain and pain they will minimize (54). Even if Jim had made a promise to not kill anyone, he would be able to break it in this situation because it would maximize the happiness of the greater good. There are always exceptions to the rules of utilitarianism. An action for a utilitarian that is morally right is one that is decided based on outcomes and consequences. Looking at Jim’s situation from an impartial view, only one prisoner will have pain along with Jim experiencing some pain in having to kill someone. But, that pain fails to outweigh the happiness, or pleasure, that will come from the other 19 prisoners and Jim all being saved. A utilitarian can treat humanity as a means to achieve the wanted outcome which is why Jim can kill the prisoner. With Kantianism, humanity is an ends dissimilarly to a means. Therefore, it would be morally wrong for Jim to kill anyone; there are no …show more content…
Although a utilitarian believes in foreseeable consequences, a Kantian does not. Most importantly, Jim cannot act on the maxim, personal standard of actions, of killing another person in this situation. He cannot justify making it into an absolute moral rule. Nor can he treat someone as a “means” to an end or value one life over another. As stated earlier, kantianism believes that humanity should be treated as an end and not a means: “a person cannot regard herself as special” (75). Unlike utilitarianism, kantianism do not hold that undertaking an action to maximize pleasure makes that action morally right. Moral rules are binding always (68). Kantianism holds, “the only way moral good can exist/ is for rational creature to act from a good will,” which is regarded as acting “from a sense of duty” (78). The motive of duty will incline Jim to preserve everyone because that motive has moral worth. In comparison to acting on his motives of inclination, such as emotions that hold no moral worth. In this situation, Jim technically will not be the reason for the death of anybody if he declines to kill one person (72). This is because he only has the option to either kill people or not kill people; he does not have the option to save anyone. The captain, or other agent, has that option since he is in
It is a simple use of an equation for a utilitarian (53). This equation helps determine “utility,” which is whatever produces happiness; happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. Jim’s motive does not matter. The only entity that matters is considering each agent, or person, in this situation and how much happiness they will gain and pain they will minimize (54). Even if Jim had made a promise to not kill anyone, he would be able to break it in this situation because it would maximize the happiness of the greater good. There are always exceptions to the rules of utilitarianism. An action for a utilitarian that is morally right is one that is decided based on outcomes and consequences. Looking at Jim’s situation from an impartial view, only one prisoner will have pain along with Jim experiencing some pain in having to kill someone. But, that pain fails to outweigh the happiness, or pleasure, that will come from the other 19 prisoners and Jim all being saved. A utilitarian can treat humanity as a means to achieve the wanted outcome which is why Jim can kill the prisoner. With Kantianism, humanity is an ends dissimilarly to a means. Therefore, it would be morally wrong for Jim to kill anyone; there are no …show more content…
Although a utilitarian believes in foreseeable consequences, a Kantian does not. Most importantly, Jim cannot act on the maxim, personal standard of actions, of killing another person in this situation. He cannot justify making it into an absolute moral rule. Nor can he treat someone as a “means” to an end or value one life over another. As stated earlier, kantianism believes that humanity should be treated as an end and not a means: “a person cannot regard herself as special” (75). Unlike utilitarianism, kantianism do not hold that undertaking an action to maximize pleasure makes that action morally right. Moral rules are binding always (68). Kantianism holds, “the only way moral good can exist/ is for rational creature to act from a good will,” which is regarded as acting “from a sense of duty” (78). The motive of duty will incline Jim to preserve everyone because that motive has moral worth. In comparison to acting on his motives of inclination, such as emotions that hold no moral worth. In this situation, Jim technically will not be the reason for the death of anybody if he declines to kill one person (72). This is because he only has the option to either kill people or not kill people; he does not have the option to save anyone. The captain, or other agent, has that option since he is in