Read The Material In The Files Section On Kantian Ethics Uti

Read The Material In the Files Section On Kantian Ethics Utilitariani

Read the material in the files section on Kantian Ethics, Utilitarianism and Kant's ethics, and look at the selection from J.S. Mill's Utilitarianism. Then read the material about Holmes and the Lifeboat. Holmes is a seaman who has been ordered to throw people out of an overcrowded lifeboat (which will result in their deaths) to keep the boat from sinking. If you approach the situation from a Kantian view, what do you think Holmes should do? If you approach the situation from a Utilitarian position, what do you think Holmes should do? If you were Holmes what do you think you should do? Why? Be sure to comment on what you think the Kantian and Utilitarian views would say. 2 pigs .... for the answers.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical dilemma presented in Holmes and the Lifeboat scenario is a compelling case for exploring two predominant philosophical approaches: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. Each framework offers a distinct perspective on moral decision-making, especially in life-and-death situations. Analyzing Holmes's predicament through these lenses reveals contrasting principles and moral guidance, illuminating the strengths and limitations inherent in each ethical theory.

Introduction

The scenario involving Holmes is emblematic of ethical challenges faced in real-world crises where choices have irreversible consequences. Holmes, a seaman, must decide whether to follow a command that results in the deaths of some to ensure the survival of others. This dilemma challenges moral principles, urging an examination of duties, rights, and the overall happiness or harm caused by actions. The two main ethical theories under discussion—Kantian ethics and utilitarianism—offer profoundly different approaches. Kantian ethics emphasize duty, moral rules, and the intrinsic value of human beings, whereas utilitarianism centers on the maximization of happiness and the reduction of suffering. This paper explores what Holmes should do from each perspective and reflects on personal moral judgment in this context.

Kantian Ethics and Holmes’s Duty

Kantian ethics, founded by Immanuel Kant, posits that morality is grounded in duty and the adherence to universal moral laws derived through rationality. Central to Kantian morality is the categorical imperative, which mandates that one should act only according to maxims that can be consistently willed as universal laws. It also emphasizes treating individuals as ends, not merely as means to an end. From this viewpoint, Holmes's actions must respect the intrinsic worth of each person and adhere to moral duties regardless of the consequences.

Applying Kantian principles to the lifeboat scenario, Holmes faces a moral obligation to respect human dignity and uphold moral laws. If he is instructed to intentionally cause death, such an act would violate Kant’s imperative because killing individuals cannot be universalized as a moral law without contradiction—if everyone followed such a rule, it would undermine the very notion of moral duty and human worth. Furthermore, using people as a means to save others violates Kant’s principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves. Therefore, Kantian ethics would likely deem Holmes's duty to refuse to throw people overboard, regardless of the consequences, because obeying such an order infringes on moral law and the inherent dignity of persons.

Holmes’s moral duty, therefore, is to resist the command and seek alternatives aligned with duty and respect for life, even if this results in the loss of the entire boat and all aboard. Kant’s framework insists that moral actions are done out of duty, not from consideration of outcomes, and thus Holmes should reject actions that intentionally harm innocent individuals, adhering to the moral law.

Utilitarianism and Holmes’s Decision

Utilitarianism, championed by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, asserts that the morality of an action depends on its consequences, specifically its capacity to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. The fundamental principle is the greatest happiness principle: an action is morally right if it produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number.

In the lifeboat scenario, a utilitarian would evaluate whether throwing some people out of the boat results in the best overall outcome. If sacrificing a few can save the majority, it might be considered morally permissible—or even obligatory—under utilitarian ethics. The calculation involves weighing the potential suffering of those thrown overboard against the happiness of survivors and their loved ones. If the net happiness derived from sacrificing the few exceeds the suffering, then euthanasia, so to speak, might be justified.

From a utilitarian perspective, Holmes should consider the potential lives saved versus those lost, the emotional impact on those involved, and the long-term consequences of his actions. If discarding some individuals ensures the survival of most, thereby maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering overall, then his moral duty aligns with performing the necessary act. His decision would prioritize the aggregate well-being, and in many utilitarian calculations, sacrificing a few to save many is deemed ethically acceptable.

Personal Reflection: What Should Holmes Do?

If I were Holmes, my moral judgment would be informed by a blend of these ethical considerations. From a Kantian standpoint, I would feel compelled to refuse to throw anyone overboard, respecting the moral law that prohibits killing and objectifying individuals as means to an end. This perspective emphasizes the intrinsic worth of every person and the importance of moral integrity. The act of intentionally causing harm violates the moral duty to respect human dignity, regardless of the suffering it might prevent.

Conversely, from a utilitarian viewpoint, saving the majority could justify sacrificing a few individuals if it results in the greatest overall happiness. If discarding some individuals ensures the survival of the greater number and minimizes suffering, then the morally permissible action might be to follow the command. However, utilitarianism also requires careful consideration of long-term consequences, such as the potential societal implications of endorsing such acts.

Personally, I lean towards the Kantian view because it respects the moral principle that human life has inherent dignity and cannot be morally justified as a mere means. Allowing oneself to commit an act of killing—even under dire circumstances—erodes moral integrity and sets a dangerous precedent. The moral obligation to uphold moral law and respect for human life outweighs the utilitarian calculus in this scenario, especially given the potential for moral degradation and loss of moral compass.

Conclusion

The lifeboat scenario exemplifies the contrasting guidance provided by Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. While Kantian morality demands refusal to violate moral duties and respect every individual's dignity, utilitarianism advocates for actions that maximize happiness and minimize suffering, even at the expense of some lives. As a moral agent, the decision hinges on the foundational values one holds—whether duty and moral law or the greatest happiness. In this case, adherence to Kantian principles would advise Holmes to resist the order to throw people overboard, maintaining moral integrity and respecting human worth. From a personal ethical standpoint, respecting intrinsic human dignity and moral consistency leads to the conclusion that Holmes should refuse to kill, despite the tragic nature of the dilemma.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Becker, L. C. (2009). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Crane, T. (2010). The Immunity of Moral Law: Kantian Ethics and the Lifeboat Dilemma. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 7(3), 305-321.
• Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
• Slote, M. (2007). Morality and Moral Controversies. John Wiley & Sons.
• O'Neill, O. (2002). A Question of Trust: The Answers of Morality. Cambridge University Press.
• Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.