Philippa Foot Thought Experiment
1

J.S. Mill would tell the rescuer in Rescue I to save the five as that would promote the greatest common good. In Rescue II, it is not as easy to say the same thing—for while it is obviously better to save five than it is to save one, intentionally killing one to save five does not come with the same moral assurances as simply choosing to save five instead of one. Killing one is an intentional act and does not correlate with goodness in any way. To justify the killing of one that five may live is to pervert the notion of what it means to act morally. One cannot say that one person is more deserving of life than another; one can, however, argue that in a given situation where one has the chance to save a group of five or a group of one, one ought to try to save as many as possible.

The principle of utility is that actions are good if they can promote happiness for moral agents. Thus, the morality of an action is determined by its utility in the promotion of happiness. The more happiness that is promoted, the better it is for the common good of all. In Rescue I, it is likely the case that everyone will feel that, as moral agents, they must act to save the five because more happiness will be promoted in that way. However, if the one who is in danger were of particular value to society—so it was the President—then the moral agents might believe that it is more important to happiness to ignore the five and save the one. In the Rescue II scenario, none of the moral agents would be able to justify intentionally killing a person to save others because intentionally killing anyone does not promote happiness.

2

Kant would tell the rescuer in Rescue I to save the ones who are nearest and in need of saving. If that means, saving the one over the five, then so be it: one has a duty to do one’s duty—and to ignore one in need of rescuing so that one might rescue others is to fail in one’s duty. In Rescue II, it is the same. Kant would say that one must not harm another that others might be aided, for one has a duty to save—not kill.

The first version of the Categorical Imperative is that one should act only on that maxim through which one can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In other words, one should not act in a way that would go against the way that one would want others to act in all cases. This version would apply to the two situations...…to make another person happy. Unless all are in agreement about what constitutes happiness, Mill’s approach is limited. For Mill’s approach to work, it is almost as if Aristotle’s virtue ethics system would have to be accepted first.

Kant’s approach at least recognizes that duty can be determined universally speaking, i.e., one cannot argue about what one’s duty is in a given role. A teacher’s duty is to teach; a student’s duty is to learn; a police officer’s duty is to serve and protect the community by enforcing the law, and so on. These are all fairly objectively discerned and understood and accepted. If there is confusion about one’s duty, one is usually dismissed. Thus, Kant at least gives an objective standard by which one can judge the morality of an action. This eliminates the risk of contention and argument, for one can objectively say what the duty is, what the responsibility of the individual is with respect to the role, and what the moral course of action would be. It is not as easy to say this in a given situation when one is implementing the Mill’s approach, and trying to figure out what would make sense in terms of promoting the most happiness would take so much time and energy that it must inevitably be seen as a very impractical approach—which is ironic since it is an approach posited on having utility.

Sources…