Introduction
The ability to choose between right and wrong has been a contentious issue about ethical principles that govern societal rules. Among the minds that have developed theories to address the matter are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. On the one hand, Kant is of the view that an individual’s moral force must be guided by an obligation. His dependence on practical reasoning led to the conclusion that humanity is subject to a single moral obligation which he referred to as the categorical imperative. On the other hand, Mill argues that human beings are guided by the desire for happiness. As such, an action is deemed good provided it facilitates the experience of greater overall happiness. Even though utilitarianism offers a flexible viewpoint that accounts for sensitive circumstances, the deontological perspective’s adherence to impartial and rational reasoning makes it superior as it provides a stable foundation for decision-making.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism supports the idea that actions are right provided they support human happiness, and they are wrong if they fail to meet the aforementioned parameter. The basis of this moral principle is utility, which dictates that individuals should choose actions or policies that have the most beneficial consequence for all involved parties. In the first scenario, the utilitarian theory posits that each action must support the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In essence, the rights and needs of the single individual, which, in a different context, would be prioritized, must be abandoned to facilitate the survival of the five individuals in danger of drowning. In essence, utilitarianism supports the idea that some people may need to suffer for the rest of society to flourish.
The second scenario involves the direct endangerment of an individual’s life in an attempt to save others. According to Mill’s theory, it is ethical to kill the individual trapped on the road to save five others from drowning. When each of the six individuals’ happiness is considered the same, five deaths out number one. Adhering to the principle of maximum utility requires that the five are saved at the expense of the individual trapped on the road. It is important to note that Mill posited that the agent’s happiness is of little consequence. The most important tenet that must be met is overall happiness (Mill 13). Therefore, even though killing the individual trapped on the road on the way to saving five may cause the individual discomfort, the overall happiness outweighs the pain associated with the loss of a single life.
It is critical to note that based on Mill’s utilitarian principles, actions are considered right based on their consequences and nothing else. In the evaluation of the aforementioned consequences, the degree of happiness or pain created is the only relevant parameter. Finally, each individual’s happiness in any given context counts as the same, and actions are premised on the assumption that happiness is desirable and all acts are a means to that end.
The Principle of Utility
About the presented scenarios, the utility principle posits that the morally right decision is the one that creates more benefits over harms for all involved parties regardless of the techniques employed. The utility principle applies a formula to distinguish between right and wrong actions. Right actions support the experience of happiness, while wrong acts facilitate the experience of suffering (Mill 12). Therefore, the promotion of happiness makes an action objectively right. However, the act is only considered morally right if it aligns with social rules designed to promote general utility. Mill justifies the above actions by proposing a specific technique for reaching each decision. First, it is critical to delineate alternative actions and list each h individual impacted by the decision. The next step involves attempting to foresee the consequences for each of the involved parties. A comprehensive evaluation of the consequences must then be undertaken by weighing the degree of pleasure or pain each party will experience after the action is implemented. It is important to choose the act that maximizes happiness for all the people involved.
It is critical to note that Mill’s assertions reject rigid rule-based moralities that categorize whole classes of actions as either wrong or right. This is incorrect because the impacts of specific actions differ depending on the context in question. These impacts are the determinants of whether an action is right or wrong. For instance, saving one life as opposed to five results in a higher degree of pain which is undesirable. The right decision would be to save a higher number of people, even though moral rules abhor the loss of life regardless of the number. While moral rules have a place in society, the utilitarian principle dictates that in situations where a higher degree of good can be achieved by violating rather than obeying them, the rules must be violated. Therefore, killing one individual to save five is justifiable from a utilitarian point of view.
The Deontological Theory
The deontological ethical theory determines the moral rightness of a decision by evaluating its intrinsic moral value. Therefore, every action that is deemed good must be qualified, except goodwill. Intentions play a critical role, and the consequences of the action have no role to play in the determination of its morality. It is vital to note that an act is considered moral, provided it abides by the requirements of moral law. In the first scenario, Kant would advise that the people easiest to reach are saved first regardless of the number involved. Therefore, if the single individual is nearest, he or she should be saved even if doing so will result in the loss of five other lives. This is because it is morally reprehensible to allow the loss of life when the means to save it are available. In the second scenario, there is no justification for killing the individual stranded on the road, even if it means losing five other people.
The Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative refers to a rule that outlines the actions individuals must undertake and does not provide specific qualifications. It is universal because all people are deemed rational and should, in essence, act in the same way. It is also described as impartial because the acts are not guided by personal biases but by respect for human autonomy and dignity. There are two identified versions of this unconditional moral law. The first version asserts that agents must state the rule on which their actions are based. The next step involves formulating a maxim concerning universal law and determining if every individual can be rationally willed to observe the proposed maxim (Kleingeld 86). Therefore, saving human life must be prioritized regardless of the number of people involved. Secondly, it is wrong to kill an individual in an attempt to save others. There is no moral justification for such an action because the termination of life is not a universally accepted law.
The second version of the categorical imperative asserts that agents must treat people as ends and not as a means to an end. Therefore, it is not acceptable to exploit people for whatever reason. It is vital to note that right acts align with moral principles derived from nature. Individuals must preserve human life, avoid causing harm, care for their offspring, always seek the truth and maintain social ties. Kant proposes the application of the double effect doctrine, which states that a good action is an acceptable event in situations where the consequences may be adverse (Kleingeld 100). However, engaging in wrong activities is not acceptable even if the outcomes are good. The guiding principles in the categorical imperative include the fact that an action is permissible if it is inherently good or morally neutral. In addition, wrong actions must not be used to justify good effects, and the agent’s intention must be to promote well.
Based on the second version of the categorical imperative, the lives in scenario one must be saved regardless of the number of people involved. The agent must not weigh the decision by looking at the number of lives but rather by assessing the expediency with which life can be preserved. In scenario two, killing the individual to save five others is morally reprehensible because human beings must never be used as a means to an end regardless of the situation.
Criticisms
The utilitarian theory has faced several criticisms over the years. The most prominent is the fact that an individual is often incapable of predicting the impact of moral decisions on other involved parties. It is challenging to know whether an act will promote pain or pleasure. In situations filled with uncertainty, people are forced to guess how their actions will impact others, which is an ineffective way of making decisions in morally complex situations.
Kant’s deontological theory has been criticized because it fails to delineate the individuals or authorities tasked with deciding the norms of behavior. The fact that correct behavior is entirely dependent on context, any behavior can be justified by highlighting the impact of prevailing forces at the time the act was committed. In addition, while religious institutions and governmental agencies are expected to dictate what s right, there is no reason to suggest they are more capable of accomplishing the task than other members of society. This creates confusion as to what is considered the moral course of action, which impacts the application of moral principles in decision-making.
Conclusion
Utilitarianism and the deontological perspective offer different approaches to handling ethically challenging situations. While the former highlights the importance of the utility principle, the latter argues in support of doing what is morally correct regardless of the outcome. The deontological perspective is the superior approach because it dictates how actions must be based on good intentions and that the results do not justify the means through which an outcome is achieved. Adhering to Kant’s perspective is essential to the maintenance of social order in ethically challenging situations.
Works Cited
Kleingeld, Pauline. “Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law.” Kant-Studien, vol. 108, no. 1, 2017, pp. 89–115.
Mill, John. Utilitarianism. Courier Corporation, 2012.