Introduction
An ethical dilemma occurs when an individual has a problem in the decision-making process between two possible options. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism and Immanuel Kant’s deontological theory are some of the ethical perspectives that can be applied when one faces difficulty in making decisions. Therefore, the application of these theories in Philippa Foot’s “Killing and Letting Die” will give different and distinct outcomes.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is one of the most important moral theories that John Stuart Mill developed. The approach is the outlook of the Scottish philosopher David Hume, who suggested that morality might be grounded in senses and emotions (CrashCourse). Unlike other proponents of utilitarianism, David Hume negated the significance of reason or the divine when making moral decisions (Sackris and Larsen 12). His proposition was clarified by Mill, who came up with the principle of utility. While improving Hume’s work, he made three recommendations to guide a person when faced with an ethical paradox.
The first recommendation put forward by Mill was that happiness is the only thing with true and intrinsic value. The concept of intrinsic desire follows altruistic hedonism, which views desired things as those that bring pleasure to oneself or other creatures (CrashCourse 3:19). He suggested that a thing can only have an intrinsic value if it is a means to itself and not some end. Consequently, people should not appreciate anything if they cannot associate it with pleasure or happiness. Pleasure is valued purely for its own sake, and no one can prove why happiness is better than sadness.
The second recommendation under the utility principle argues that right actions only promote happiness. Conversely, wrong actions cause unhappiness or something unpleasant (CrashCourse 2:10). The utilitarian approach is consequentialist since a given action’s morality is determined by its consequences. Utilitarianism holds that an action is only better if it produces more happiness among those it affects.
For instance, saving two lives is more ethical than saving one. Although the consequences of an action are a key determinant of utility, John Stuart Mill, thirdly, recommended that everyone’s happiness count equally (CrashCourse 2:35). Therefore, the principle of utility can be summarized as actions to be judged by their tendency to bring happiness and pleasure to the greatest number.
Rescue
The principle of utility can be applied to Rescue I in the scenario provided in Philippa Foot’s “Killing and Letting Die”. John Stuart Mill, in Rescue I, would advise the rescuer to prioritize the lives of five people over one. Similarly, in Rescue II, he would suggest that the rescuers drive over one person to save the party of people from the dangers of the coming tide.
When applying the principle of utility, the philosopher first argues that both people in danger deserve happiness, which counts equally (Mabsout 167). Consequently, an ethical action would be to save and make them happy by rescuing them from the tides. However, there is a moral dilemma about who should count when making them happy.
The third axiom of the principle of utility will help solve the paradox: an action is only better when it promotes more happiness among the affected (CrashCourse 3:21). In both Rescue I and Rescue II, a better action would save the lives of many people. Therefore, the five people in Rescue I and the party of people in Rescue II are the ones who should be counted to benefit from the rescuing mission. Sacrificing one person would be justified since their demise would result in greater happiness among the many people who would be saved from the dangers of the tide.
Deontological Philosophy
Human beings are believed to have reasoning abilities that help them understand moral laws applicable in all life situations. Contrasted to utilitarianism, deontology is not a consequentialist approach. The philosophy does not look at the consequences of an action; instead, it is centered on morality and human reasoning (CrashCourse(a) 00:30).
Hypothetical and categorical imperatives are the axioms of Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics. However, much of his writings focus on the categorical imperatives, moral and unconditional absolutes. In the given scenario, two categorical imperatives, the Universal Law and the Humanity formulations, would be applied to yield contradicting results from those of John Stuart Mill.
Categorical Imperatives Application
The first categorical imperative, as formulated by Immanuel Kant, was that of the Universal Law. According to him, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (CrashCourse(a) 3:08). The formulation suggests that a true moral proposition is that which is not tied to any other condition.
Additionally, the identity and desire of the person making deliberations in a given ethical dilemma should not count. In Rescue I, the philosopher would argue that rescuers have a perfect duty to rescue any other person. The duty to rescue any other person should not be tied to the condition of first saving the five individuals.
In Rescue II, the Universal Law formulation can also be applied to save any other person who needs help. In its simplest definition, a perfect duty is blameworthy if not done. Rescuers in both scenarios would be blamed if, at any time, they left someone to die just because they had other similar duties. Meanwhile, the second categorical imperative, the Humanity formulation, can be applied in the given situation. Kant stated, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your person or the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” (CrashCourse(a) 6:32). The formulation combines the first categorical imperative, obliging human beings with a perfect duty of not using their humanity and others as mere means to some end.
The Humanity formulation would best be applied in Rescue II, where the rescuers have to kill one person so that they can rescue a party of people. The formulation requires using another person as a means to an end. In Rescue II, killing the trapped person would be used as a mere means to achieve an end: saving the lives of the people at the party. Consequently, Immanuel Kant would suggest that the rescuers first save the life of the trapped person.
The duty that arises from the second formulation is an imperfect one since one is morally required to seek an end for all people equally (CrashCourse (a) 2:00). The imperfect duty in Rescue II is consistent with the principle of utility’s axiom: everyone’s happiness counts equally. While Mill would recommend saving the lives of more people, Kant would require the rescuers to save the lives of the lesser ones and not to use them as a means to an end.
Criticism
Although deontology and utilitarianism provide an approach to a moral dilemma, they have been criticized in some ways. The major criticism of John Stuart Mill’s utility principle is the difficulty in measuring happiness or pleasure. While the utility principle is consequentialist, no one can quantify the overall action’s consequences in complex scenarios (Wagner).
On the other hand, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics is criticized due to its rigid devotion to moral duties (Joshi et al. 1657). Absolute moral rules are sometimes associated with counterintuitive outcomes. For instance, it is ethically problematic for the rescuers in Rescue II to save the life of one person for the sake of many people.
Mill’s approach would be better than Kant’s when solving the scenarios. Unlike Immanuel Kant’s approach, the utilitarian approach would allow the rescuers to weigh the success of their actions while focusing on the benefits of the greatest number. Additionally, applying the utility principle would allow the rescuers to avoid moral absolutes that could hurt the many people whose lives they need to save. Therefore, utilitarianism is the best-fit approach when conducting rescue missions.
Conclusion
Ethical dilemmas can be problematic for individuals who are making deliberations, but they can be addressed by using one of the moral theories. Philippa Foot’s “Killing and Letting Die” presents a moral paradox that would require the application of either Mill’s utilitarianism or Kant’s deontology. While the utilitarian approach needs priority to be given to the greatest number for more pleasure and happiness, the deontological one needs the application of moral absolutes through categorical imperatives. Using the utility principle would be better than the categorical imperatives in the rescue mission since many people’s lives could be saved.
Works Cited
CrashCourse(a). “Utilitarianism: Crash Course Philosophy #36.” YouTube, YouTube Video, Web.
CrashCourse. “Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35.” YouTube, Web.
Joshi, Amit, et al. “Scientific Philosophy: Exploring Existential, Metaphysical, and Ethical Research Philosophy behind the Question ‘WHO AM I?’” Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, vol. 14, no. 3, 2023, pp. 1648–1671, Web.
Mabsout, Ramzi. “John Stuart Mill, Soft Paternalist.” Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58, 2021, pp. 161-186. Web.
Sackris, David, and Rasmus Rosenberg Larsen. “The Disunity of Moral Judgment: Evidence and Implications.” Philosophical Psychology, 2022, pp. 1–20, Web.
Wagner, Isaac A. “Ethical Theories as Multiple Models.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 49, no. 6, 2022, Web.