Kant Vs Mill: Ethical Dimensions and Consequences in Moral Dilemmas

Philippa Foot’s Ethical Dilemmas: Weighing Lives in Two Morally Charged Scenarios

A British philosopher by the name of Philippa Foot introduced us to a trial of thinking that included circumstances of two different situational states. The results of the circumstances were similar. However, the method that they were about made an alteration into whether they were ethically and morally suitable or, in other words, right or wrong. The first scenario is introduced to us. Within this scenario, an individual is forced to drive very fast to save a total of five other individual’s lives.

There is one person who asks the individual for help; however, if the individual stops and helps the person in need, he will not be able to make it to rescue the other five people who will die if this happens. So, with this being a terrible situation, the individual decides to save the other five people instead of just that one. After we become familiar with the first scenario, there is a second one that is introduced to us as well. Within this scenario, it is introduced the same way. There is an individual who must drive very fast to save other individual’s lives. However, what is different in this case is that the path is now slim, and there is no other path that can be accessed or used. On this path, there is a man that is injured. If the individual were to stop and help this man, the individual would not be able to go and save the five other individuals in need as well. The result of this unfortunate circumstance is that the individual ends up driving over the man to save the other five individuals and kills him. As you can see, the results are the same in both situations. However, the circumstances are different. Either way, there are five people that end up living and one person that ends up dying. In saying this, there are many people who would agree with the first scenario over the second simply because the individual was not accountable for the person dying in the first scenario, but they were in the second. The man would have lived if the individual would simply not run him over to save the other five people. For this reason, many people will contend that the first situational circumstance is ethically and honorably right.

John Mill’s Utilitarian Perspective: Kant and Mill on Ethical Choices and Consequences

From these scenarios, we assessed the way that philosopher John Mill assessed them. John Mill, a philosopher throughout the nineteenth century, was an activist and supporter of what is known today as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is basically the concept of a person’s actions and the fact that they are ethically right if and only if they generate the highest and largest amount of good. In the first scenario, which we call the Rescue 1 scenario, let’s say that we [yourself] are the rescuer. I would describe the rescuer as the ethical representative. There are people who will be affected by the rescuer’s actions. In this scenario, those affected are a total of six people, which include the one person who asks for help and the other five individuals who also need help as well. There are only two decisions that can be made, as stated earlier. As we more than likely know, Mill would tell the rescuer to go and save the other five people from potentially drowning and leave the one individual. As stated within the Rescue 2 situational circumstance, Mill would tell the rescuer to run the one individual over and save the other five people who are in desperate need of help as well. In the light of these two scenarios, Mill would result in these outcomes because of what we know as the Utilitarianism theory. This tells us that saving five people is better than saving one because it produces more happiness and avoids any anguish or grief that may happen. Mill sees this theory as a person’s actions being right if they promote happiness but wrong if they prevent any happiness from being produced. In simpler meanings, a person’s activities are said to have favorable utility if they produce more happiness than they deprecate it. The theory of utilitarianism pertains to this scenario simply because contentment and happiness are produced and amplified by rescuing more individuals. Basically, when you see or hear of actions that result in contentment, it is ethically good; however, if there are actions that result in sorrow or unhappiness, it is said to be ethically bad. By Mill being what we know as a consequentialist, the outcome of something being consequentially good is aimed for.

Kant’s Moral Framework: Intentions, Categorical Imperatives, and the Value of Humanity

Moving forward, Kant is the person who is attentive to the representative of morality. By this, he is most apprehensive about the purpose and drive of the representative for what happened. To Kant, good is described as “pure and goodwill.” This means that it is the predisposition to ensure the right thing and is administered by reason. One thing that I got out of this is that not one person can really be blamed for the consequences that are a result of their doings. This is because a person may be in the act and have a determined mind to do the right thing, but somehow, it doesn’t happen that way. In saying this, the one that we are always in control of is our motivation. There is only one correct motive that should be sought, and that is to actually do the right thing. You do the right thing because it is the ethical and moral thing to do. In the first scenario, Kant would tell the savior or rescuer to do what we have previously read, which was to save the five people from potentially drowning. This was the right thing to do because the rescuer was already on their way to the group of five while passing the other individual in need of help. However, when we look back at the second scenario, Kant would have told the rescuer to come to a stop and to not drive over the one individual who was in need. This is because if the rescuer were to save the five individuals instead, the death of one individual would now be their fault, which is not ethically right. When we read about Kant, we become aware of the fact that consequences do not matter to him. This is where categorical imperative comes into the light.

A categorical imperative must be implemented into a situation to see if it is morally right or wrong. Between the two versions of the categorical imperative, the first version says to function only conferring to that maxim by which you can at a similar time will that it must develop into a universal law. A rule that is implemented in the fundamentals of our actions is what we know as a maxim. In saying this, a person should not create superior rules for themselves that they would not want to see others doing. A question that can be asked is, if everyone else is doing something, can the other person do it as well? If they can do the specific activity, then it is allowed; however, if they cannot do the activity, then it is not allowed. Next, there is the second version of the categorical imperative. This version says, in summation, that a person should use humanity, whether it be for themselves or another person, and it should be done at similar times as an end and not as a means. When Kant says “means,” he is referring to something that is implemented to attain a goal. When he says “end,” he is inferring something with an essential worth. By saying this, a person should treat everyone, including themselves, as possessing great worth, and they should never use anyone. This can only apply to individuals who possess reason and self-government. These traits are very important assets in a person. These assets make us distinct from creatures and create us into moral individuals. Kant proposes that a person should not treat another person as simple “means.” This it takes away their capability of coming up with logical choices. Within the first scenario, the representative of morality must possess a moral motive that coincides with moral law. In my opinion, his maxim would be, “I can save five lives by surrendering one life.” This is the moral thing to do, and this should be what any person would do and select to go through with. When we look into the second scenario, we can conclude that the maxim is, “I can save five people by killing one.” This concept is not common, and in my opinion, this is not what a lot of people would select to go through with. When it comes to the categorical imperative, the second version is relevant in this condition because this experiment of thinking must be treated with an essential worth.

Mill’s Pleasures vs. Kant’s Deontology: Assessing Ethical Foundations and Their Implications

Moving forward, one criticism that I can think of of Mill is utilitarianism favors happiness as that of what a creature has gone through. With Mill, there are two types of pleasures that he discusses. The first form of pleasure is lower pleasures. These pleasures are common with creatures and animals. These are mostly physical and are beneficial only to the person. The second form of pleasure is what we know as high pleasure. These pleasures are unique to people but can also make individuals dispirited. Mill expresses his opinion on these issues. He expresses that it is superior to be a human being who is dissatisfied than an animal dissatisfied. To sum this up, Mill basically said that there is no person who would relinquish being a human being to becoming an animal. This is for the simple fact that the human being would be deprived of so much. When it comes to Kant, one criticism would be that there was no contrast between the comprehension of things and the comprehension of thoughts.

Lastly, I would argue that the theory of deontology produced by Kant is more evident. It is my belief that we as individuals tend to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do morally. Figuring what is the right thing to do comes from experience and knowledge that is bestowed upon us by our guardians and leaders.

References

1. Kant, I. (1785). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.
2. Kant, I. (1788). Critique of Practical Reason.
3. Mill, J. S. (1861). Utilitarianism.
4. Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty.
5. Allison, H. E. (2011). Kant’s Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary.
6. Crisp, R. (2017). Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Utilitarianism.
7. Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. (This book offers a modern defense and examination of Kantian ethics.)

Did you like this example?

253

13