Read the following thought experiment from Philippa Foot and then write an essay that answers the questions that follow:
“Let us consider […] a pair of cases which I shall call Rescue I and Rescue II. In the first Rescue story we are hurrying in our jeep to save some people – let there be five of them – who are imminently threatened by the ocean tide. We have not a moment to spare, so when we hear of a single person who also needs rescuing from some other disaster we say regretfully that we cannot rescue him, but must leave him to die. To most of us this seems clear […]. This is Rescue I and with it I contrast Rescue II. In this second story we are again hurrying to the place where the tide is coming in in order to rescue the party of people, but this time it is relevant that the road is narrow and rocky. In this version the lone individual is trapped (do not ask me how) on the path. If we are to rescue the five we would have to drive over him. But can we do so? If we stop he will be all right eventually: he is in no danger unless from us. But of course all five of the others will be drowned. As in the first story our choice is between a course of action which will leave one man dead and five alive at the end of the day and a course of action which will have the opposite result. (Philippa Foot, “Killing and Letting Die,” from Abortion and Legal Perspectives, eds. Garfield and Hennessey, 2004, University of Massachusetts Press)
1. What would Mill tell the rescuer to do, in Rescue I and Rescue II, according to his theory of utilitarianism? Be clear in explaining Mill’s recommendation, and how he would justify it. In doing so, you must include a discussion of the following:
- The Principle of Utility and how it would specifically apply in this situation—who gets “counted” and how?
2. What would Kant tell the rescuer to do, in Rescue I and Rescue II, according to his deontological theory? Be clear in explaining Kant’s recommendation and how he would justify it. In doing so, you must include a discussion of the following:
- The first version of the Categorical Imperative and how it would specifically apply in these two situations (hint, you have to say what the maxim would be and what duty would be generated according to it).
- The second version of the Categorical Imperative and how it would specifically apply in this situation.
3. Explain one criticism of both Mill and Kant. Afterward, argue for which ethical approach, on your view is superior. Be specific and provide reasons for your claim.
The body of the essay must be 5-6 pages (1250-1500 words) in length
- 1 inch margins
- 12 point, Times New Roman font
- Title Page
- Words Cited Page
- Properly use MLA in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quoting (Purdue OWL MLA Formatting and Style Guide)
Utilitarianism and Deontological theory
Various morality theories explain how we should handle certain situations and the right actions we should take. In this case, there are two scenarios, Rescue I and Rescue II provided by Philippa Foot. This paper will explain Mill’s utilitarianism and Kant’s deontological theory and suggest what the two thinkers could have told the rescuers in both scenarios.
Mill’s utilitarianism is an ethical theory arguing that actions are considered right if they maximize happiness, particularly for the largest number of people, and based on this principle, actions are wrong if they tend to reduce happiness (Broeders et al. 923). In this theory, the principle of utility does ascribe right or wrong actions to anything. Moreover, it governs morality and the general art of life. According to Mill, since the only end desired by all human beings is happiness, then it is fundamental to morality. To support his claim that man never desires anything rather than happiness, he showed that everything else that people desire includes a definition of happiness, or they are ways to happiness. Moreover, Mill posits that…………for help with this assignment contact us via Email Address: firstname.lastname@example.org