Killing one person to save the lives of millions seems easily justified from a utilitarian standpoint. However, I reject consequentialism and thus consider the highly desirable outcome insufficient to morally legitimate the murder, and thus hope to align myself more with a Kantian framework. It is right for the doctor to kill the president because the president has chosen to be responsible for the slaughter of millions, which separates him from the category of innocent people, demonstrates moral reasoning that justifies his death, and his willingness to lead people astray justifies some form of retribution. Briefly, utilitarianism holds that the consequences of an action determine its moral worth and that the relative balance of happiness over suffering constitutes the highest good (Mill, 358). From a utilitarian perspective killing the president is permissible because it tremendously benefits the happiness of millions while causing suffering to the smallest possible measure of people. Because the judgment that renders it permissible to kill the president is based off of the consequences, it makes little reference to the president as a particular person or to his efficacy as a moral agent. Indeed, individuals who favor utilitarianism seem incredibly likely to render the murder of a single person to save millions morally justified regardless of who that person was or the manner in which that person conducted their life. I consider this problematic because it essentially makes any life expendable for a good enough reason, thus undervaluing the dignity inherent in being a person and, by focusing merely on the desirability of the outcome; it neglects the morally relevant distinction between killing an innocent or culpable person. If a... ... middle of paper ... ...en he stated: Even if a civil society resolved to dissolve itself with the consent of all its members- as might be supposed in the case of a people inhabiting an island resolving to separate and scatter themselves throughout the whole world- the last murderer lying in the prison ought to be executed before the resolution was carried out. This ought to be done in order that every one may realize the desert of his deeds, and that blood-guiltiness may not remain upon the people; for otherwise they might all be regarded as participators in the murder as a public violation of justice. (Rachels, 142-143). Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (selection),in Fifty Readings in Philosophy (4th edition), ed. Donald Abel, McGraw Hill (2012), 347-358 Rachels, Stuart. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "7,8,9,10." In The elements of moral philosophy. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2010. 97-145.
Morgan, Michael L., ed. Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 3rd Edition. Indianapolis. Hackett, 2001.
Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. 1964. Reprint. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2009. Print.
Tooley’s claim that killing a person and letting a person die both have an equal moral standpoint is erroneous, as intentionally killing a person worsens an individual 's situation and makes you play an active role in his/her death, whereas refraining from saving a person from dying, in some cases, will not make you play an active role in his/her death. For example, let’s imagine one of your friends, A, is lying in a small hospital with person B and they ran out of oxygen tanks. You arrive at the hospital with one oxygen tank. If you give the oxygen tank to A, then B dies. In this case, you are not playing an active role in B’s death. If, on the other hand, B happens to have an oxygen tank and you detach it from him/her and give it to A, then this follows that B will die. In this case, you are playing an active role in the death of B. This example, as a result, addresses my concerns surrounding Tooley’s moral symmetry principle and shows that a moral difference does in fact exist when it comes to killing a person or refraining from saving
A historical example of utilitarianism is when United States President Harry S. Truman ordered the second atomic bomb to drop on Japan in August, 1945. Although the first atomic bomb dropped three days prior on Hiroshima, Japan, killing over 70,000 people, the Japanese still did not abdicate in the war with America. “In late July, Japan’s militarist government rejected the Allied demand for surrender put forth in the Potsdam Declaration, which threatened the Japanese with ‘prompt and utter destruction’ if they refused” (History.com staff). With no response from Japan, President Truman ordered the dropping of the first “…atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end” (History.com staff). Therefore, three days after the first atomic
A Logical and Unemotional Justification of Capital Punishment. Just as the Pied Piper of Hamlin was paid to destroy the rat population, the state prisons are being forced to perform a similar action with what is an overflow of vermin. Taking either a "pro" or an "anti" stance is not something to be done lightly. Most people decide which side they are to take based on purely emotional reasons. Those who support capital punishment do so based on a hatred of the crimes committed, and a fear of similar crimes happening to them.
The risk of executing innocent human beings is the focus of this paper. I believe that this risk is so significant that it constitutes a decisive reason for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States.
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
I propose to argue instead that capital punishment is immoral because of the kind of killing it is, rather than because it is a kind of killing simpliciter. This is a specifically moral argument, but it differs from the usual pacifist argument in that it does not assert or depend upon the claim that all killing is i...
O'Neill, O. (1986). A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics. Matters of life and death (pp. 44-50). n.a.: McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, Robert, Johnson,. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford University. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 27 Nov. 2013.
O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics. Ed. Peter Singer. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 1991. 175-185. Print.
Fred Feldman, 'Kant's Ethics Theory: Exposition and Critique' from H. J. Curzer, ed Ethical Theory and Moral Problems, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999.
‘Kantian Ethics’ in [EBQ] James P Sterba (ed) Ethics: the Big Questions, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, 185-198. 2) Kant, Immanuel. ‘Morality and Rationality’ in [MPS] 410-429. 3) Rachel, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy, fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.