Comparison Of Philippa Foot Rescue I And Rescue

Thesis

The Philippa Foot Rescue I and Rescue II presents. a moral dilemma in which a person must decide between saving the lives of many and letting one die or letting many die in order to save one. In this essay, I will introduce two philosophers, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant, who will then have their philosophies analyzed and applied to the situation in a way that simulates a potential approach to the two scenarios. In addition to that, I will provide a criticism of both approaches and why I believe that Mill’s approach to the scenario would be a superior choice when compared to Kant’s.

Philosopher Beliefs

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a philosopher, economist, and civil servant. He was an advocate for individual freedom and

In this case it would be utilitarianism. This means that his response would focus on the happiness of the many instead of the individual. Therefore, in Rescue I. He would recommend saving five instead of the one. His reasoning being that the five people will provide the greatest amount of happiness versus saving the lone person. In Utilitarianism Mill states that “If a person is not capable of feeling pleasure, he is not a part of the system of things which the utilitarian morality embraces” (Mill 17). Both the lone person and the five people can feel pleasure, so they would all be included. However, Utilitarianism promotes the happiness of the greatest number of people. So, he would justify his decision by stating that the five people would produce the greatest amount of

How can a person quantify the happiness of actions. If you had to cause the death of someone, how would that affect the overall happiness gained by saving five more. People are not simple creatures where five minus one equals four. People are complex and feel different emotions from one another. This makes it hard to implement utilitarianism as a proper response to the scenario.

Kant’s Approach.

Karl’s believes in Deontological Ethic. This means that he believes every action should come from a sense of duty and that the morality of the actions comes not from the consequences, but rather the intent of the person. This intent is built from universal moral laws that are absolute and apply to rational people. This was the basis of which he formed the Categorical Imperative.

Categorical Imperative can be broken down into two different formulations, each one would provoke a different response in the situations due to the difference in definitions. For example, the first formulation states that an action is morally right if and only if the maxim, or principle, that governs the action could be willed to be a universal law. The second formulation states that an action is morally right if and only if the actor treats humanity, whether in themselves or others, always as an end and never merely a means to an