Paste your essay in here…Unit 5 Writing Assignment: Mill and Kant
Today's United States Criminal Justice System has a tough time in justifying what is ethical and morally correct in difficult situations. More specifically we are faced with a situation in which Jim can sacrifice killing one Indian for 19 Indians or choose to walk away and have them all killed by the government. By evaluating the views, theories and criticism's of Immanuel Kant the deontologist and John Mill the utilitarian, Jim's moral alternative can be more clearly determined. Ultimately it is realized that Mill's view in regards to Jim's situation is the superior based on his theories and the greater good.
Certainly, in this situation John Mill would tell Jim to take Captain Pedro's offer as a guest privilege of killing one of the Indians himself and in turn letting the other Indians go. To justify Mill's recommendation he would first discuss the Principle of Utility and how it applies specifically to the situation. According to Idaho State University, The Principle of Utility states that, "An action is permissible if and only if the consequences of that action are at least as good as those of any other action available to the agent". Moreover, Mill not only believed the Principle of Utility but he had several distinctions that made his view unique. He believed that important consequences in determining whether or not an action was right are happiness and unhappiness which is also known as Hedonic Utilitarianism. Furthermore, he believed that everyone's happiness was taken into account and weighted equally. Specifically, Mill applied no time limit; All consequences from the action were considered no matter the duration. Mill says, "The moral goal of our actions, is to create the greatest happiness for the greatest number" (Baergen). According to Philosophy Pages, Mill believed that not all differences among pleasures could be quantified. Pleasure experienced by humans differ in qualitative ways which establishes the moral worth of promoting higher intellectual pleasures over lower bodily pleasures (Kemerling). Taking all of Mill's beliefs into account, his utilitarianism view justifies the recommendation to kill one of the Indians himself.
Based on the Principle of Utility, killing one Indian and sacrificing Jim's guilt in doing so is permissible because the consequences of that action are better than having twenty Indians killed and Jim's guilt knowing that he could've saved nineteen Indians knowing they wanted him to do so. Because Mill believed everybody's happiness was to be considered equally, between the two options, having Jim kill one Indian produces the greatest total happiness. First, Jim's happiness would have to be considered. Based on a logical judgment, it would seem Jim would be happier in the long run with killing one Indian. He would be happier with that decision first because it's what the villagers begged him to do. Secondly, he'd be happier knowing that he made the choice to have one life sacrificed instead of nineteen. In the opposing situation, Jim would feel more unhappy for not listening to the villages plea and they may forever resent him for making that decision which also weighs down Jim's happiness. Then he has to live with the fact that he couldn't put aside his own personal guilt and cowardness enough to save nineteen people. A decision to walk away from the situation would only serve Jim short term happiness by not having to personally kill anyone but in the long term it would haunt him knowing he caused twenty deaths that he could have prevented. The greatest and longest form of happiness for Jim would be to go with the decision to kill one Indian, ultimately making it the best situation morally based on Mill's ideas.
Because everybody affected by the action has to be considered the Indian's/villager's happiness has to be compared as well. Looking at the first option with Jim taking the offer to kill one Indian and have nineteen other live, is the decision that produces the greatest total happiness in favor of the Indian and villagers. First, it would be the option that the villagers begged for so that would satisfy their plea. Second, instead of having twenty Indians removed from the world, nineteen would remain to pursue lifelong happiness and be there to experience life's joyful moments. Also, having one Indian killed would be less mournful on the families that are affected by the deaths rather than twenty people killed with extended families that'll mourn for them. So overall, having Jim kill one Indian produces the greatest total happiness and therefore is the best option, morally, based on Mill's ideas in the best interest of the Indians and villagers.
Lastly, the other group affected is Pedro the captain and his soldiers. The decision Jim should make that produces the greatest total happiness for this group is the decision to kill one Indian. The captain would be more please because he offered Jim a guest privilege and he would be offended since he honored Jim with this privilege. Also because this was a demonstration to show the villagers the advantages of not protesting, assumably the captain would feel better off having one Indian killed and getting his warning across while maintaining lower tension between the government and the people as opposed to killing 20 Indians.
On the other hand, Immanuel Kant would tell Jim to refuse to kill and Indians. According to the Seven Pillars Institute for Global Finance and Ethics, "The theory of deontology states we are morally obliged to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome". Moreover, from Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, he believes, "Nothing in the world – or out of it! – can possibly be conceived that could be called 'good' without qualification except a good will". He continues his point by elaborating with, "…Good will is good because of how it wills – it is good in itself" (Kant). He goes on to explain that humans have a unique capability of rationality. Kant believed human inclinations like emotions and consequences should have no influence on moral action but based on this rationality and should be well thought out before initiating. Therefore morality should be a rational framework not a personal motive (Shakil). This is seen when Kant explains, "…Reason is given to us as a practical faculty, that is, one that is meant to have an influence on the will. It's proper function must be to produce a will that is good in itself and not good as a means. Why? Because nature has everywhere distributed capacities suitable to the functions they are to perform the means to good are, as I have pointed out, better provided for by instinct and reason and it alone can produce a will that is good in itself" (Kant).
Additionally, Kant believes a good will is utilized by acting according to moral duty. More specifically, moral duty is composed of a set of maxims, that are categorical in nature and therefore bound by duty to act in conformity with categorical imperatives (Shakil). Furthermore, the first version of the Categorical Imperative states to "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law without contradiction" (Kant). Knowing this, Kant believes moral maxims should not be tied to conditions but should be applicable to any rational being and should not be logically contradicting. In addition, the second version of the Categorical Imperative states to, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time as an end" (Kant). Basically, in this second version, he believes that we should not use people as objects but recognize that we all hold an equal value. We should appreciate people for what/who they are not what they enable us to do.
Taking all of Kant's beliefs into account, his deontological view justifies the recommendation to refuse to kill any Indians. Based on Kant's first Categorical Imperative, the maxim has to be applicable universally and logically. In accordance with those criteria Kant would probably set the maxim here as to kill no rational being. To kill no rational being is logical and can be applied universally, independent of situational circumstances. Therefore Kant would recommend that Jim kill no villagers because it would disobey the maxim.
Furthermore, based on Kant's second Categorical Imperative, every person is to be treated equally and not used for their potential outcomes. By using the maxim to kill no rational being, if Jim were to kill an Indian he would violates the second Imperative because that would disable the Indian to exercise his rights, choices and live life equally as any other being. Also by killing the Indian, Jim would be acting merely for the consequences of trying to save the others instead of for the sake of duty and that would violate the maxim based on the second Categorical Imperative by using the Indian as a means to an end. Therefore, Kant would tell Jim to walk away and refuse the offer from Captain Pedro.
In regards to this situation, there are a lot of flaws that can be seen in both Kant and Mill's beliefs. One problem we encounter with Mill's theory pertaining to this situation is whether or not people would consider Jim as a person at fault when deciding to take up the offer to kill one Indian and in the end the intended consequences do not become the actual consequences. All the information that is provided is that these Indian were protesting against the government but it is not known whether the Indian are at fault or if the government is at fault. Who is to say that saving the lives of nineteen Indians was to produce the greatest total happiness if those Indians were killing much more lives as a means of protest. When looking at the consequences, Mill doesn't provide support for a good intended person whose unknown consequences were out of control.
On the other hand, one flaw with Kant in this situation would be the fact that he completely disregards personal circumstances and consequences which is basically what determines or gives us reason when we decide to go through with an action. To act on the maxim, "to kill no rational being" just to purely act on the maxim and consider no reason at all would be acting and living blindly. It would be more immoral to let twenty people die rather than one, because that would equate to disobeying the maxim twenty more times since twenty people are killed and ultimately the consequences rely on his decision. Inaction is just as immoral as obeying a maxim, once everything is considered. Obeying a maxim seems to be the more righteous when it comes to Kant as opposed to serving for the greater good.
Based on research, the difference in theories, beliefs and the possible flaws between Mill and Kant, the more superior view is Mill's. First, Mill provides flexibility in his views and flexibility is necessary in a constantly changing and complex world. Moreover, Mill takes into account of consequences and the duration of their effects. Without the consideration of consequences we simply have no reason to act on anything. Like Kant's theories, it would simply be illogical to obey a rule just because it is good, with no intent or purpose for making such decisions other than obedience. Mill's view takes his whole view on morality as a subjective manner to achieve the best outcome for the greater good. What use would a morally obedient view do if it didn't improve livelihood or anything. Mill's view is the ethical approach because it is used to promote a positive consequences rather than just promoting obedience and in turn letting negativity linger. Specifically, the reason Mill's view is superior in this case is because of his flexible view that accounts for consequences, yes Jim kills one but saves nineteen lives. Although killing is immoral, it was done ultimately for the greater good. In Kant's position, Jim would walk away to purely be obedient to a duty because killing is wrong. However not killing one person and having twenty lives lost is allot more immoral and less to the favor of the greater good than sacrificing one life for nineteen. In Kant's view, people are purely destined moral based on their obedience to a maxim but not looked at if being placed in reality. Only in a perfect utopia would Kant's theories have any moral worth or logical use. The whole point of being "moral" is to serve the greater good and that is why Mill's view is superior.
All in all, Mill's theory of Utilitarianism was the more superior by allowing Jim to kill one Indian to spare the lives of nineteen others for the greater good. However, Kant's deontological view and Categorical Imperatives placed a duty for Jim to obey to the maxim "do not kill" and may have a theory that shows morality in Jim's obedience but not doing any good for the reality of the world and more importantly, this situation. In today's U.S. Criminal Justice System, Jim would probably get a sentence for deciding to kill a person. With judicial laws as rigid as Kant's theories, there is no moral justice!