Rightness and wrongness of actions depends upon the situations in which those actions are performed. For example, doctors performing clinical trials on humans, the army saving their nation against terrorists, or a school bus driver saving children while sacrificing the life of an old man, this dilemma is always debatable.
Questioning them for performing their duties is not correct. Morality and ethicality can be used alternatively but in reality these terms are altogether different. Morality is defined as a human behavior that is freely subordinate to the ideal of what is good and right, and appropriate.
Ethics is the study of the concept that refers to practical reasoning for good, proper, duties and obligations, values and virtues, freedom and liberties, rationality and free choice in life. At a certain situation, individuals have to make moral decisions instead of ethical decisions.
This debate is about should we treat humans as a means to achieve our goal or as an ultimate end. My goal is to critically examine the views of Utilitarian and Kantian deontological theory to determine whether morality of the actions depends on consequences of actions or the intentions behind it.
The theory I am examining is based on the principle of Utility. “The GOOD is that which provides for the happiness of the greatest number of people even if it results in no happiness to the agent at all”.
I will support the claim that it is acceptable to save thousands of people on account of the lives of ten innocent individuals. I will start by giving a brief description about two different theories and their viewpoints: Deontological theory and Classic utilitarianism theory. Then I will try to compare and contrast these two theories and their responses on this question.
The utilitarianism theory states that moral actions are those which gives happiness to the greatest number of people. The consequentialists talk about “the consequences of actions rather than intentions behind it.”
They believe that, “An action ought to be done if and only if its outcome contains a sum total of (subjective) well-being that is greater than that which is contained in the outcome of any alternative action”. This suggests that any action maximizes the happiness of a greater number of people, when chosen the other alternative.
So, if killing ten innocent people can save ten thousand individuals, then this is serving the purpose of greatest good to greatest number of people.
On the contrary, the Kantian deontological theory judges actions based on intentions rather than the outcomes. It states that, “we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome”.
This means humans are bound to act as per rules without considering the consequences of their actions. Therefore, according to Kantian ethics, killing even one individual is not permissible as we are bound by some moral rules which makes certain actions immoral.
The first argument that I will give in support of the claim is that saving a greater number of individuals will give more happiness than saving ten individuals. There are three reasons in support of this claim. Firstly, If we are put into such a situation, then it is our moral duty to save more lives than saving a lesser number of people.
Yes, it is possible that among those ten thousands, some of them would not be innocent but looking at the greater perspective, among ten thousands, most of them are innocent. S
ubsequently, If we talk about valuing a human life, then is it not better to save more and sacrifice less number of people? As per the rule utilitarianism’s point of view, “Every act is evaluated according to the utility. Does it or doesn’t it produce HAPPINESS. Utilitarians must maximize HAPPINESS.
They must never accept unhappiness if they can minimize it” (Reading- Utilitarianism). This means if there is an option to minimize unhappiness, hence we should always choose that alternative which has more utility. Therefore, between given choices, keeping more people alive, is considered as righteous action by society.
Kantian deontology may argue that if we talk about valuing human lives, then it is neither justifiable nor morally correct to kill even one individual. Every individual’s life is valuable.
Deontological ethics claims, “ the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it” (Reading: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals –Immanuel Kant). This means outcome does not decide whether actions are considered as moral or immoral.
Therefore, saving ten thousand people and providing the greatest good to greatest number of people does not prove that our actions are just and moral. Is it just to suppress the minorities for greater good?
Furthermore, they also claim that we are obligated to act as per the maxims ( … ) “Some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome”. That means certain actions are always morally wrong, for example, killing, lying, stealing, cheating, so we should not disregard these moral rules and always act according to them.
However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason. Kant overlooks the situation under which certain actions are being performed. If someone has done something, then what was the situation’so, this theory does not explain the situational aspect of any action.
The second argument to support Utilitarianism theory is that happiness of all the individuals is equal and when we maximize the GOOD, then humans’ happiness is weighed according to its utility for a greater number of people.
To illustrate, a school bus driver faces a situation in which either he can save a school bus full of small children, or an old man, who can be killed in that accident. The moral decision will be saving small children rather than an old man.
If we look for the greater good, then it is an obvious decision to save small innocent kids who might become great doctors, engineers, lawyers, scientists and bring a change in the lives of millions of the people. On the other hand, saving an old man and risking the lives of small children is not a moral decision.
That old man has at least lived his life to the fullest. Bentham’s utilitarianism claims, “He holds that an act ought to be done if and only if it produces a greater balance of pleasure over pain than the negative act of not doing that act”. This means that action should be produced only when it brings happiness over unhappiness to a greater number of people.
On the other hand of spectrum, Kantian ethics argues that we cannot judge human lives based on quantities. A bus driver could think of other alternatives to save that old man as well as children.
But if the bus driver would not succeed in preventing that accident and unintentionally killed those children while saving that old man, then it will not be considered as a murder unlike utilitarianism theory, where they support the notion of killng that old man.
Nevertheless, this claim can also be rejected because Kantian theory cannot answer a question that Is it just to save someone who has almost lived his life and sacrificing those small innocent kids who have just started their journey towards their bright future?
Is there a guarantee that the old man was innocent and never committed any mistake in his life?
The third argument in support of the utilitarianism theory is emphasis should be laid on balancing both positive as well as negative effects.
Rule utilitarianism states, “whenever you are in a situation and have alternatives you calculate the utility to be produced by adopting a course of action (rule) which would produce the greatest utility in the long run if it were followed every time that situation arose” (Reading: UTILITARIANISM).
That means whenever we have the option to choose between the two, then we should always choose which will give long term benefit to more people. In current crisis situations, clinical trials on humans are going on to check whether a particular medicine can be effective or not.
If we correlate that situation with the current situation, then it is possible that during trials experimented humans can die of wrong medicine. We cannot call this action of the doctor immoral.
Is it not moral that by doing so we are saving millions of individuals? However, it is necessary to take consent from the individual on whom trials are being performed. The first principle of the Nuremberg Code clearly states, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”. (Reading- Human experimentation).
Conversely, Kantian deontology claims the human being as having the unique capacity for rationality provides people with a framework of rational rules that guide and prevent certain actions and are independent of personal intentions and desires. (Reading: “Universal law”—Immanual Kant).
In other words, humans are rational beings and they are capable of taking moral decisions which do not have a tint of selfishness. So according to Kant, if we kill humans during clinical trials, we have a selfish desire behind it. This makes such actions immoral.
However, Kant’s theory could not answer that if a person who is already dying, gives permission for clinical trials even after knowing about the consequences, even that action is wrong’science is all about taking risks and understanding more.
If those 10 innocent individuals would not have been killed then maybe there would be no developments in medical science. There was a time when cancer was incurable and now due to tests and trials we are saving thousands of individuals.
The Last argument regarding this dilemma is that it promotes objective thinking. To illustrate this, If killing even 1 person is wrong then aborting a fetus with abnormalities is also wrong. Utilitarian theory argues that the greatest good is giving happiness to the greatest number of people.
In this case, taking emotional decisions can cause long term consequences. If a doctor does not advise the lady to terminate pregnancy, then the birth of that child can give more pain than happiness and can affect more lives. That child will have to suffer throughout his life. There is no guarantee that a child can live a normal life.
Secondly, parents can get affected emotionally and financially throughout their lives. So, abortion is the correct decision to save three individuals.
On the other hand Kant opposes this thought by arguing that aborting a fetus means killing a person. It might be possible that in future, the doctor gets the cure for his abnormality.
Killing a fetus will raise questions on the humanity of many individuals, firstly, parents who permitted to kill an innocent life and secondly, nurses and doctors, who are equivalent to god. It is their moral duty to save every individual.
Aborting a fetus does not guarantee happiness. As Kant argues, “ I would express thus Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law.
I may have inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will”. That means that we should act accordingly due to the respect towards the moral laws. Just because we have selfish desires behind that action does not make it moral.
However, this objection also does not work because if we think logically, moral decisions are something that affects less number of people in the society. Here, by terminating pregnancy, many lives can be saved thus it is considered as moral action. It will save many people including parents, doctors, and nurses from the lifetime guilt of destroying the life of a child.
In this paper I have determined that the theory of utilitarianism on this claim of killing ten innocent individuals to save ten thousand individuals is ethically just. Individuals, if faced with such situations, should look for the bigger side of what will give more happiness both to them as well as others.
Whether killing more people to save ten individuals is logical? I believe that in the practical world if people have to deal with such situations, intentions behind the act will not be considered as a righteous act rather outcomes will matter the most.
It is not necessary for an individual to always act according to the law, sometimes moral judgments can be taken as per the situation. It is not always important that whatever actions you do will give you happiness but for the greater good of the society, some decisions are important.
To sum up, the views of utilitarian theory best describes this situation and gives us satisfying results and less guilt than choosing the other option.
