Deontology in Jim and the Indians

Jim has found himself in a quandary. When arriving in a South American town he has happened upon a captain and his army about to assassinate twenty Indians in order to deter other Indians protesting against the government. Jim is treated as a guest to the town and offered the privilege of shooting one of the Indians in which case the captain will let the other nineteen go, however declining this offer will mean the captain will carry on as planned and kill all twenty.

Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary that Bernard Williams and J.J.C Smart put forward in their original analogy of “Jim and the Indians” in their book , Utilitarianism: for and against (J.J.C Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.).

The deontological view would be that we should act according to a set of rules, obligations, or duties that we must fulfil, unmindful of the consequences. Kant, a popular deontological philosopher of the 19th century, wrote in his “Foundations of Metaphysics of Morals”,

Nothing in the world – indeed even beyond the world – can possibly be conceived which could be called good with qualification except good will (Kant 61).

This “good will” is the basis of for a deontological argument. Courage, perseverance and patience are all qualities of character, while qualities of mind may include intelligence and judgement. All are desirable and good; however these qualities can become bad and harmful, if there is no good will.

The belief here is if there is good will in everyone and that this good will can p...

... middle of paper ...

...ir cause for freedom and equality, thus bringing about a greater amount of happiness. This could be viewed as bringing a greater amount of happiness to a greater amount of people over a longer period, rather than bringing unhappiness to a small minority over a shorter period.

In conclusion we can say that consequentialism is flawed in the fact that the borders of a wrongdoing, to bring about a better good, are limitless. We can conclude that evil wrong doing can be construed as bringing about a better happiness for what the evil doer contrives to be for the better good of the people. For the most part we have seen that deontology’s view of good will in the individuals act can lead to moral justification. The captain and his men must make this moral decision to kill or not, if they do kill the Indians, their actions must be left to higher authority to deal with.