Hinojosa 1

Philosophy 101 GS06

Research Essay: Defending Utilitarianism

In example two, we are faced with a very tough situation that raises the question of when is it or

whether it is morally wrong to kill someone. John Stuart Mill, who has a utilitarian point of view, believes

that anything is morally good if it contributes to the greater overall happiness, then, in this case, it would

be reasonably moral for him to kill one person in order to save more, as it reaches a greater good of

others. In contrast, Immanuel Kant would argue that killing someone is morally wrong under any

circumstance and in this situation we are using the death of a person as mere means to an end, which,

according to him is morally wrong even when the end reached is the greater good. I would agree with

Mills utilitarian point of view in this situation, as Kants moral theory does not seem to take into account

the consequences that would happen according to the decisions that are made and in a situation where

many lives are at stake, it would be reasonable to try to save as many lives as we can by any means

necessary.

Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism, according to Mill, the only way to determine if an

action is morally good or not is to take into account the consequences of the action that it is to be made

(185-186). Faced with a tough situation like the one given in example two, a utilitarian approach would

be to weigh out all possible action`s in an effort to find the one that would satisfy the greater good of

more people. In the situation given, there would be only two possible actions, to kill or not to kill. If we

were to kill one of the villagers, the rest of them would be let off at the stake of our happiness but in

favour of the greater good. If we were not to kill one, every single one of them would die. Mill would agree

with the former one because it reaches a greater good, and also in a way, Jim would be sacrificing his own

happiness for the greater good of others and according to Mill, this can be considered as the highest virtue

that can be found in man (193-194). If Jim, choose not to kill the one villager, then the captain would have

killed all the villagers, which in return would have an effect also in Jim as he would not be happy, but in
 Hinojosa 2

this case he would have to sacrifice his happiness for nothing as all the villagers would be dead, therefore

making his sacrifice wasted as it does not increase the overall happiness (Mill 194).

Immanuel Kant would argue that to achieve a morally good action, one must appeal to reason,

and the action that is done has to conform with the moral law and also be done for the sake of this one,

therefore, killing someone no matter in which situation is absolutely wrong (Kant 4:390). In this situation,

the death of one person could be considered as being used merely as means to reach an end which is

morally wrong if we follow Kants moral theory, however, if it is not used as means to reach an end, the

alternate end itself would be more catastrophic after all. Jim is faced with the hard decision as to decide

whether in this situation it would be beneficial to the greater good to use a person as means to an end.

The difference between Kants view and a utilitarian point of view would be that Kants moral theory does

not judge an action based on its outcome, but it judges it based on the person will of committing the

action, if the action is to be that of a good will, then the action could be characterized as a morally good

action (Kant 4:394).

The idea of Kant, that we should not judge the morality of an action based on the expected

outcome of this one, makes me grasp more towards reaching a solution using a utilitarian point of view.

In my opinion, Mill would analyze the situation in more depth and look at all possible outcomes before

deciding whether or not to act. In this situation in which many lives are at stake, it would only seem to be

reasonable to save as many lives as possible in an effort to try and increase the overall happiness of

everyone, I believe that it would also be at stake the happiness of Jim and how would the rest of his life

would develop as he would have to live for the rest of his live being reminded that he killed someone, but

it would not be as bad as if he chose to not kill it, then he would have to live being reminded of how he

could have saved a lot of people at the stake of one. In both cases, his happiness would be at stake. If I

were to be in Jims shoes I would have to make the hard decision to kill one of the villagers, as it seems

that there is no other option to be able to reach another agreement in which all lives are saved, but I much
 Hinojosa 3

rather live my life knowing that I saved more lives at the stake of one and my happiness, than I saved none

at the stake of just my happiness.