The Lifeboat Dilemma
There were several issues involving ethics in The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case. The case facts are subject to a major ethical issue involving whether it is ethical to kill a man to save three. Some would argue that when given a situation where at least one person will die, we should try to save as many human lives as possible. Others should state that the value of human life is immeasurable. Who are we to decide if one life is equal to another? To decide my position on this issue I needed to review the facts and then view how the philosophies of Mill and Kant apply to this case.
The facts of the case were that four men who became stranded on a boat for several days after their ship capsized. The names of the four …show more content…
'; 'Would it make a difference if Parker gave consent to be the one being killed? ' and 'Will it be morally justified to feed on Parker, assuming he died naturally? 'The Queen Vs Dudley and Stephens Analysis Philosophy Essay. (n.d. June 10, 2016)
The Philosophers Mill and Kant provide divergent views on morals and ethics. Mill 's philosophy of Utilitarianism and Kant 's philosophy of Categorical impartial are two examples. Kant’s philosophy is a theory that People should do the right thing, even if that produces more harm than doing the wrong thing. Mills philosophy is a theory that the action that makes the most overall happiness is what is morally …show more content…
The belief that Parker should have been given the right to choose. Impartiality would mean that each person 's interests are equally important; from the moral point of view, that Dudley and Stephens should not have been considering themselves as privileged persons. That Parkers life was as important as their own. That even though it may have meant that more lives were sacrificed the right thing would not have been to kill a man.
Mills would view this case using his Utilitarianism philosophy. He would agree Dudley and Stephen were morally justified to kill Parker out of necessity and they were the ones who would have the greatest chance of living and shouldn 't be charged. Dudley and Stephens stated that their families being supported as a whole would be more beneficial than having all the sailors die, leaving their families with no support. Parker did not have a family. That the sailors provided the greater good for the greater
There were several issues involving ethics in The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens case. The case facts are subject to a major ethical issue involving whether it is ethical to kill a man to save three. Some would argue that when given a situation where at least one person will die, we should try to save as many human lives as possible. Others should state that the value of human life is immeasurable. Who are we to decide if one life is equal to another? To decide my position on this issue I needed to review the facts and then view how the philosophies of Mill and Kant apply to this case.
The facts of the case were that four men who became stranded on a boat for several days after their ship capsized. The names of the four …show more content…
'; 'Would it make a difference if Parker gave consent to be the one being killed? ' and 'Will it be morally justified to feed on Parker, assuming he died naturally? 'The Queen Vs Dudley and Stephens Analysis Philosophy Essay. (n.d. June 10, 2016)
The Philosophers Mill and Kant provide divergent views on morals and ethics. Mill 's philosophy of Utilitarianism and Kant 's philosophy of Categorical impartial are two examples. Kant’s philosophy is a theory that People should do the right thing, even if that produces more harm than doing the wrong thing. Mills philosophy is a theory that the action that makes the most overall happiness is what is morally …show more content…
The belief that Parker should have been given the right to choose. Impartiality would mean that each person 's interests are equally important; from the moral point of view, that Dudley and Stephens should not have been considering themselves as privileged persons. That Parkers life was as important as their own. That even though it may have meant that more lives were sacrificed the right thing would not have been to kill a man.
Mills would view this case using his Utilitarianism philosophy. He would agree Dudley and Stephen were morally justified to kill Parker out of necessity and they were the ones who would have the greatest chance of living and shouldn 't be charged. Dudley and Stephens stated that their families being supported as a whole would be more beneficial than having all the sailors die, leaving their families with no support. Parker did not have a family. That the sailors provided the greater good for the greater