Kant vs Utilitarianism

Sorry about the title, that's just how my professor sort of framed it. We've been discussing oddly enough, The Crucible and whether or not John Proctor was a good man. But that's kind of irrelevant because the question in my mind is more abstract.

My professor has been kind of framing everything as between Kantian morality and Utilitarian morality. Kantian being that everyone has certain rights and preserving those rights in the face of a greater good is preferable to violating them in the service of that greater good while utilitarianism simply decrees that one must maximise the amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people possible.

The thought experiment is as follows:
You are given the choice of killing another person. If you choose to not kill, then that person will be killed along with two other innocent people. Either way that person is dead. It's just a matter of whether it's by your hand and the number of people caught in the collateral damage. What's the moral choice?

I say that Kant is right and the moral choice is to not kill the doomed person. I am not responsible for the actions of others. But I am responsible for mine. But then I feel sucky for letting 3 people die so that I can remain morally clean. And if I'm abstaining out of concern for my own morality then aren't I just being selfish and just as complicit in their deaths?

You are not really being given a choice tho, are you? Either way it seems you are destined for sleepless nights, unless you have the morality of a killer already.

I agree; refusing to do the deed and letting them do it is the preferable option, but the ideal scenario - assuming they were asking you to shoot the unfortunate victim - is to shoot the person giving you the "choice".

In so far as to frame Kantian morality against Utilitarian morality I guess it just depends on whether it's The Wrath of Khan or The Search for Spock.

But given the situation at hand I would lean toward the Search for Spock, or rather the Kantian morality. I alone am responsible for my own actions; what another chooses to do, whether based on my choice or not, is entirely up to them.

Killing the person making the offer would also not be the best moral choice. As no crime has yet been committed (other than the threat) then it is not my responsibility, morally speaking, to proactively attempt to circumvent said crime.

However, once I have decided not to kill the victim, and the interlocutor has given the directive to have the victim killed along with the other people, would it be morally acceptable, whether under Kantian, Utilitarian or any other framework of morality, to stop the enforcer by what ever means necessary? Would it be a moral choice to kill the triggerman?

Do I have the moral obligation to do what is in my power to prevent suffering in my fellow man?

Before the call is made to fire I would be acting on an assumption that the call will be made at all, after the killing is done any action would be strictly vindictive. Neither of these are morally acceptable (at least to me) but to act in the face of action seems ok to me, and I believe it still follows through with a Kantian way of looking at things, however I am unable to offer cite or example.

The issue I have with thought experiments like this is the whole black and white, one or the other aspect. Morality is an extremely complex issue, and this particular question puts the respondent in the position of being responsible for the death of either one or two lives (if he takes the second option, he's only responsible for the two innocent lives, as the first person's life will be taken regardless). It is, in other words, an unwinnable paradigm; one that is set to force the respondent to analyze their initial reactions and their responses. If you agree to kill, you have in all likelihood violated your personal moral code by taking a life. If you do not, you are responsible for the death of two innocents. Which is the more acceptable ethical position?

Both choices have moral justification. Choosing to kill the condemned man speaks to a dedication to the greater good, while refusing to do so speaks to a dedication to one's own moral center. Both are equally damning as well. There is no right or wrong answer, only one which frames your morality and shows how you make moral decisions.

Personally, I would likely kill the condemned man.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dangerously Unqualified

Killing the person making the offer would also not be the best moral choice. As no crime has yet been committed (other than the threat) then it is not my responsibility, morally speaking, to proactively attempt to circumvent said crime.

---

How do you know no crime has been committed?

Do you think you are likely to be the first to be put into this predicament?

The "right" thing to do, is insist you will only kill them with a gun, then to try and take out as many of the people forcing you into this no win situation, regardless of whether you will die or not. Or, at least I am.


Marissa - choosing to kill the condemned innocent person, don't forget. We are assuming that the person you are being asked to kill is as innocent as the extra 2 who will die if you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MarissaW

Both choices have moral justification. Choosing to kill the condemned man speaks to a dedication to the greater good, while refusing to do so speaks to a dedication to one's own moral center. Both are equally damning as well. There is no right or wrong answer, only one which frames your morality and shows how you make moral decisions.

---

I had arrived at the decision that I could not kill someone even if it meant others would live but I came to the same conclusion you did about there being no right or wrong answer. But then a little voice in the back of my head asked if I felt there was no right or wrong answer or if I just wanted to think that so I could feel ok choosing the 'wrong' answer.*

Ivan, I agree that if such a situation were to come to reality, I'd like to think I could disable the threatener or defuse the situtation but the point of the hypothetical is to determine whether you value life above all else or your morality.

*It is a conundrum I struggle with a lot. I tend to take a position on an issue and then wonder internally if I truly believe it or merely want the path of least resistance.

Since I'd be pretty much guaranteed to feel like shit regardless, I'd go for the kill. Who knows, I might get desensitized and that can't be bad.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

I had arrived at the decision that I could not kill someone even if it meant others would live but I came to the same conclusion you did about there being no right or wrong answer. But then a little voice in the back of my head asked if I felt there was no right or wrong answer or if I just wanted to think that so I could feel ok choosing the 'wrong' answer.*

Ivan, I agree that if such a situation were to come to reality, I'd like to think I could disable the threatener or defuse the situtation but the point of the hypothetical is to determine whether you value life above all else or your morality.

*It is a conundrum I struggle with a lot. I tend to take a position on an issue and then wonder internally if I truly believe it or merely want the path of least resistance.

---

And that is the point of the exercise. Morality is about how we feel about right and wrong (although of course many argue that point). If there is a law you feel is unjust, do you feel guilty or wrong for breaking it? If someone who has performed some horrible act (say child molestation) goes to jail on an unrelated charge (tax evasion) do you feel he should have been dealt with more harshly? Morality is, at its base, how we feel what is right and wrong. Ethics is what we reason to be right and wrong. At least, that's my emotionally charged opinion. ;)

Ivan, the question does not say whether the person is guilty or innocent.

This ethical poser also doesn't say how you are supposed to kill said victim. Say someone was then presented to you tied up and helpless, and you were told you had to kick them to death?

The scenario in the OP is lacking the detail for anyone to make any kind of valid moral choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ivan astikov

This ethical poser also doesn't say how you are supposed to kill said victim. Say someone was then presented to you tied up and helpless, and you were told you had to kick them to death?

The scenario in the OP is lacking the detail for anyone to make any kind of valid moral choice.

---

Steel toes or Sneakers?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dangerously Unqualified

Steel toes or Sneakers?

---

Flip-flops.