Unit One: Argumentative Essay
An unknown terrorist has patched a phone call to your cellphone informing you to torture a child they have feelings for and then kill the child. If this is accomplished, the terrorist will detonate a highly combustible weapon that will result in injuring and possibly killing many civilians. In order to save maybe thousands of people, is it morally permissive to end up taking the life of an innocent child? Is it worth saving the life of others for the life of an innocent that won’t know the reason for their life coming to an end?
It is not morally permissible to torture then kill an innocent child for the pleasure of a terrorist. Even if one engages in this action that benefits the greater good, it goes against treating everyone the same/fairly in addition to it not being morally permissible to risk the life of someone in order to save a larger group according to Kant. Instead of the killing of the child becoming a high pleasure for someone, it will become a part of their life that will stick with them from having blood on their hands therefore it will not lead to achieve true happiness. The reason for this is because even though the person has a new high pleasure the quality will interfere with the main goal of a utilitarian view. The action of not taking part in the killing of the child will cause a conflict with a bias that exists in the ethics of care even if the option you choose goes along with the moral virtues that affect our decisions.
Emmanuel Kant established a theory that states that an act of good should come from our duty. He establishes there are two imperatives that help evaluate a good. Kant believed a good should not be done with the hope of getting some kind of reimbursement including self-satisfaction. Instead, it is our duty as rational beings to engage in good actions.
Kant’s categorical imperatives were established to create a relationship between an objective law of reason to a will. Additionally, both imperatives have the power to determine if an action is good using the principle of a will good. Thus, we get the hypothetical and categorical imperative. When determining if an action is good, the hypothetical imperative factors if the action is good for a possible or actual purpose. The imperative also takes into consideration whether the action is “good as a means to something else” (Vaughn, 4th, p.120). Contrary, the categorical imperative believes an action is good if there is good within itself without a reference of a purpose. In Vaughn’s excerpt of Kant’s Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, we see that if an action is considered a categorical imperative, it should be valid as a practical principle without an alternative end (Vaughn, 4th, p.120). The dilemma of torturing the killing an innocent child, I classify mostly with the categorical imperative because if the child unfortunately dies, then thousands will be saved. Yet, it goes against the categorical imperative because the intent of the action is to save others. Then the action would be a hypothetical imperative although we can’t use someone for our own benefit therefore the action cannot be considered morally permissive.
In Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant states that 'good will' comes from the good in itself. Kant also adds that a good will should be able to shine on its own- the purpose of the good will is to “achieve nothing” (Vaughn, 4th, p.116) because the good will’s usefulness is powerful enough to be good on its own. Therefore, it is my duty to protect the people I can no matter how much the terrorist has feelings for the child. It is not morally permissible because if I do not protect the child, based on nature’s universal laws, it will make it okay for human beings to kill an innocent.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that focuses on an action that produces the best balance of happiness over the unhappiness of everyone and that the good of everyone should be promoted in the decisions we take. John Stuart Mill believes in the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle’ where happiness should be promoted in every way and how happiness can be determined not only through higher and lower pleasures but through a quantitative approach rather than qualitative. The term pleasure in utilitarianism refers to happiness. An example of a lower pleasure Vaughn gives is having sex, eating a food you were craving etc., because the internal pleasure lasts for a short period of time. What is considered to be a high pleasure can be incorporated as knowledge that will help you through a long period of time. Mill states that although the quantity of the pleasures is important to consider for this moral theory, quality of the pleasures should be what matters most. Additionally, Mill states one should have more higher pleasures than low pleasures in order to achieve the maximum happiness in one’s life. For this scenario, although the quantity of people injured or lost will be at a higher impact level, what about the family of the child who will be deceased? The quality of loss the family receives will be considered a form of high pleasure for them because they will live with this loss forever whether they look at the child as a hero or a victim. That is what I believe Mill would argue about using the child to stop the terrorist. Although the life of the child will have saved a greater quantity of people, the utilitarianism theory states a killing of a person for the good of others is allowed when it comes to act-utilitarianism but when it is compared to our moral judgments, the action is considered unfair.
Aristotle’s ethics of virtue are “central to a moral of life” (Vaughn, 4th, p.139) since it interweaves the function of a human being, arete (moral virtue) and eudaimonia (happiness). The ethics of virtue’s main goal for a person’s behavior to result from their moral virtues thus leading to the ‘Golden Mean’. In addition, the virtues that make up this type of ethics focus on wisdom, prudence, rationality (intellectual virtues) along with fairness, benevolence, honesty, and loyalty (moral virtues). Aristotle’s main claim in his ethics of virtue is that we make our decisions based on our true morality. He claims our decisions are results of our emotions, motives and intentions and not out of duty like Kant stated.
If an Aristotelian were to look at this challenge, first, they would associate the challenge with the ethics of care and second, they would agree with the challenge because it would be the wise choice to sacrifice a child versus a large population. The ethics of care would depend on who was looking at the challenge. Psychologist, Carol Gilligan found that women often factor in their personal life and emotions to one's own moral decisions while men focus more on the justice part of it. Therefore, the challenge could be interpreted differently depending on the gender of the person who will engage in the conflict though Baier argues both justice and emotions should be factored into our moral decisions. Although, this would be a conflict because the person who is to take action in torturing and killing the child would have to live with the memory of what has been done even if it's for the moral good to end one person’s life rather than a whole population. Even if the Aristotelian were to believe that killing the child would be the best decision, there is no true guidance as to what is the ‘moral’ thing to do in this situation. If you do not take part in the action, you are considered a coward although you may just be being rational to yourself. If you do take part in the killing, then you aren’t being fair to the child.
By not taking part of the torturing and killing of the child; first, I are remaining true to what I have been taught is ‘morally right’ according to Aristotle even if people consider my moral judgement biased through the ethics of care. It is not morally permissible to use an innocent to save a number of people according to Kant’s categorical imperative. It is unjust to use them for a greater good much less a personal one if you are going to be the one that could be blamed for the killing of others. Looking at the pleasures that lead to a life full of happiness, by taking part in the eventual murder of the child, the high pleasure effect that will occur of the action will affect one’s successful path to a life full of happiness. Thus, it is because of this that is not morally permissible to take part in killing this child. To me, it is not morally permissive to take the life of an innocent to feel good about lowering the number of deaths. It is not only not morally permissive to the child, but to the family who will have suffered a tragedy.
Works Cited
Vaughn, Lewis. Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2008. Print.