Writing Assignment

Answer

Phillipa Foot Experiment Response

Solving ethical dilemmas varies from one person to another. Similarly, as it is in this situation, it varies from one philosopher to another. Different schools of thought can be separated once an understanding of the thought experiment from Philippa Foot is made. Concerning the same, Mill and Kant had contradicting theories that are vital to understand. Therefore, this paper seeks to distinguish the answers as well as the morals elaborated within the Philippa Foot thought experiment.

Utilitarianism and Mill’s Recommendation

I confidently contend that Mill’s decisions could give attention on the overall aims attained from the action that would precede. Therefore, in Rescue I and Rescue II, he could advocate for the savior to rescue the five individuals at the cost of the one. According to Mill (350), utilitarianism can be defined as the thought that contemplates the “theory of life” as the “foundation of morals” (Mill 350). Mill’s utilitarian morals encourage him to account for not only his contentment but also the contentment of everyone. Additionally, utilitarianism is not fixated on the ethical reasons related with an act, however in utilitarianism, the ethics of action merely rest only on the positives of its outcome (Mill 371).

Nevertheless, this is unlike a form of hedonism which defines happiness as a homogeneous issue (Beaumont 453). Mill had a feeling that there are various kinds of pleasure that contained valued values as compared to others bearing in mind their integral qualities. His particular belief is typically known as “qualitative hedonism” (Beaumont 460). In explanation, qualitative hedonism is regularly seen as a belief minus reliable and constant stance. Additionally. hedonism argues that pleasure is merely the only accurate value, and various critics claim that there are no conceivable scales or distinctions to critic the pleasure levels. It varies from the belief of utility that states “that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong as they tend to produce unhappiness or pain.” Mill’s hedonism and utilitarianism merely worries about the five individuals; hence they are the only emotional states that are accounted for (Kuenzle, Dominique & Lisa Shapiro 220). At last, their five amounts of pleasure and delight is more than one.

The utility principle is a hazy subject since there are queries that are either left with no reply or replies that exceeds one. Hedonists have confidence that what individuals track in life is the happiness, and when there is no happiness, then there is discomfort. In explanation, pleasure might be sensual and more biotic, however it might as well be as simple as gaming or having a conversation with a friend. On the other hand, pain can be unbearable and physical, though it can as well be sadness or dissatisfaction (Kuenzle, Dominique & Lisa Shapiro 229). If we explore profoundly, we can conclude that rescuing the bigger group of individuals can account for extra pleasure for every person. Therefore, Mill would push for the savior to rescue the five souls rather than one soul due to how utilitarianism highlights the face-value importance more than morals.

Deontological Theory and Kant’s Recommendation

Kant’s deontological morals prohibit him from reacting against his chief most ethical strategy (Cureton & Johnson 127). For the same reason, in Rescue I, Kant could push for the rescuer to forsake the single individual and spare the other five. Though, in Rescue II, Kant would not rescue the five individuals in need of help. However, he would save the one individual caught on the highway at the cost of the other five. To elucidate, Kant’s deontological morals implies that individuals are ethically committed to act for not essentially the leading result but for the foremost ethical and moral one.

Kant’s ethical hypothesis focuses on people’s capacity to justify or have the mental capacity for reasonableness. It is what isolates people from other creatures since no any other creature can reason and think. Additionally, the sole reason why Kant accepts that people act on ethics (Kant 126). In deontology, the activities are continuously judged independently from their results. This may confound a few individuals since the act can be ethically off-base, though there can be unforeseen or anticipated results that are useful. Though, in deontological philosophy, on has to select the choice that fits the set ethical standards. In Rescue I, Kant would encourage the rescuer to rescue the other five individuals other than the one since the rescuer features an ethical commitment to rescue the five individuals. However, in Rescue II, the reason why Kant would rescue the one individual rather than the five is because in the ethical standards we hold it is ethically off-base to kill somebody for five other individuals. In this situation, Kant would legitimize leaving five to suffer and rescue one since even with the advantageous results of killing the single individual for five, it is inalienably off-base to deliberately slaughter somebody.

Essentially, to all ethical theories, there are numerous standards included, and in this situation, Kant’s categorical imperative is precisely that. It is an ethical law that is outright for entire operators or the individuals that have the capacity to act ethically (Kant 119). Looking at the primary detailing of the imperative, the thought is exceptionally comparable to the Golden Rule; for instance, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant 124; Bowie 18). Kant asserts that a genuine ethical contention must not be influenced or related to any conditions that incorporate the character of the specialist. Any aphorism should be disengaged from any situation, and it ought to be appropriate to entire rational thinkers as well. Additionally, it is critical for individuals to not react on any proverbs that might result to inconsistencies. This can be effectively appropriate to the thinking activity. For instance, in Rescue I and II, the maxim could be the primary detailing of the categorical imperative or comparable to the Golden Rule. Though, it is diverse, since Golden Rule is more observational in the sense that it needs context to work. The obligation that would come from it is picking the perfect way to follow the maxim and not make any inconsistencies.

In addition, Kant’s second form of the categorical imperative may be a subordinate of the primary one in that individuals should not exploit themselves or others as devices for an end (Bowie 39). In summary of the second adaptation of the categorical imperative, Kant specified in his Groundwork of Metaphysic of Ethics: “Act in such a way that you just treat humankind, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but continuously at the same time as an end.” Moreover, people cannot treat one another as a stepping stone to an end, and this can be deduced from the second definition of the categorical imperative (Cureton & Johnson 130). In explanation, an individual has to maintain their personal ethical adage and idealize obligation to select the finest way that makes an end that is reasonable for all individuals including the operator. In Rescue I and II, the adage is not exploiting individuals as stepping stones for an end and the obligation is to uphold that to make the ethical end. In Rescue II, it would negate Kant’s convictions to rescue the five individuals with the sacrifice of the one. Kant’s categorical imperatives are key to further understand his own adages within the thought experiment        .

Criticism of Mill’s and Kant’s Theory

I would consider Mill’s utilitarianism to be the greatest moral system. Though it risks causing people to act in unreasonable ways, I still argue that it gives the best means of realizing ethical predicaments. When it is life-and-death, I can depend on Mill’s utilitarianism, but I cannot depend on Kant's deontology to provide what I think is a sensible solution. The issues with Kant's deontology are that, they are very troublesome for me to respect without inconsistencies or contradiction. Though, utilitarianism is more adaptable. Under Mill’s logic, each person’s joy matters, and their pleasure is assumed to be weighted similarly. In Rescue II, I would regularly select to rescue the five whereas relinquishing the one, though I think it is conceivable as well to rationalize saving the one at the cost of the five if I consider my joy and the happiness of others who might somehow relate to the circumstance down the line. What if all the five that would die were thugs? What if the person I would have to rescue was a famous community pioneer and Samaritan? If I am not sure of the past or personalities of the individuals involved, would I be at responsible for my assumptions? Nonetheless, utilitarianism, offers a rational ethical philosophy, and one that is adaptable and flexible enough for various purposes. As a result, I would consider Mill’s utilitarianism as the greatest moral philosophy.