Ethical Dilemma: The Good Vs. The Right

...

stuck on the road. The option of whether to kill one person to save five others presents a critical moral question. However, according to Mill, the most ethical decision is the one that brings happiness to many people. Helping the one person stuck on the road would yield happiness but to one person. On the other hand, saving five people would yield more happiness. Mill calls for the focus on the bigger picture rather than the means; bigger picture being, five safe people and one dead as opposed to one safe and five dead.

Deontology

Immanuel Kant fosters an opposing moral framework to the utilitarianism which is commonly known as ‘The Right.’ Deontological argument of morality is built on the intentions of the acts and the duty to do. Kant developed Categorical Imperatives to guide the moral conduct of individuals. He proposed them as imperative since they were means to command the duty to morality unconditionally Humanity (Freeman 320). In the first case, Kant would assent to the saving of the five people since the original it was the original course. Leaving the one person to die would not be considered as the intention but to save the five people. The power to decide who to save is not warranted according to Kant. Changing course that would result in loss of the five lives is beyond human powers. However, the decision to stay on route to save the five party people requires one to act within the first Categorical Imperative: The Formula of Universal Law of Nature. This CI require an individual to make a decision is accepted as the universal law. In this case, the decision is to avoid the assumption of the right to choose a life from another.

In the second incident, Kant would advise against running over of one person to save five more people. This is in line with the second Categorical Imperative: The Formula of Humanity. Kant states that an individual should act in such a way that treats humanity, never merely, as a means to an end but always as an end” (Kant 96). Choosing to take a life for whatever reason is beyond human authority according to Kant. Additionally, the killing of one person to save five party people would be treating the life of the individual as a mean to the purported greater good which contravenes the second CI. Kant proposes for non-interference with nature. Therefore, if stopping to avoid killing of person would result in the deaths of five individuals then there was nothing that would have been done within the jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The two ethical theories by Mill and Kant have valid approaches towards morality, and they both accept how invaluable human life is. The major difference between the two theories is the principal focus. However, there are some shortcomings to either of them in the application. Utilitarianism votes for ends justifying the means provided that there is greater good yield or least harm occasioned. However, it becomes extreme when a life that is not in imminent danger is to be lost so that greater happiness is achieved. Personally, I do not think that the five rescued people will be happy knowing that their lives safety was at the expense of another life. Additionally, Kant’s argument that it is irrational to choose who to save and who not to is likely to create a moral crisis since in the act of staying on course to save the five people and leaving the one person dying is in itself a choice. If the original mission was to rescue a single person, would Kant advise to ignore five people calling for help from another disaster?

Nature advocates for the preservation of life. Every human life is undeniably valuable. However, in some ethical dilemma situation individual logic and moral principles apply. In the first instance, saving the five people would be ethical since all lives are in danger and the intention is to achieve the best results. In the second case, the sanctity of life precludes the moral intentions. Therefore, it is unacceptable to kill an individual to preserve a few more. 

Work cited.

Freeman, Samuel. "Utilitarianism, deontology, and the priority of right." Philosophy & Public Affairs 23.4 (1994): 313-349.

Kant, Immanuel. The metaphysics of morals (1797). na, 1996.

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn, 1863.