Read the following thought experiment from Philippa Foot and then write an essay that answers the questions that follow:
“Let us consider […] a pair of cases which I shall call Rescue I and Rescue II. In the first Rescue story we are hurrying in our jeep to save some people – let
there be five of them – who are imminently threatened by the ocean tide. We have not a moment to spare, so when we hear of a single person who also
needs rescuing from some other disaster we say regretfully that we cannot rescue him, but must leave him to die. To most of us this seems clear […]. This is
Rescue I and with it I contrast Rescue II. In this second story we are again hurrying to the place where the tide is coming in in order to rescue the party of
people, but this time it is relevant that the road is narrow and rocky. In this version the lone individual is trapped (do not ask me how) on the path. If we are to
rescue the five we would have to drive over him. But can we do so? If we stop he will be all right eventually: he is in no danger unless from us. But of course
all five of the others will be drowned. As in the first story our choice is between a course of action which will leave one man dead and five alive at the end of
the day and a course of action which will have the opposite result. (Philippa Foot, “Killing and Letting Die,” from Abortion and Legal Perspectives, eds. Garfield
and Hennessey, 2004, University of Massachusetts Press)
What would Mill tell the rescuer to do, in Rescue I and Rescue II, according to his theory of utilitarianism? Be clear in explaining Mill’s recommendation, and
how he would justify it. In doing so, you must include a discussion of the following:
The Principle of Utility and how it would specifically apply in this situation—who gets “counted” and how?
What would Kant tell the rescuer to do, in Rescue I and Rescue II, according to his deontological theory? Be clear in explaining Kant’s recommendation and
how he would justify it. In doing so, you must include a discussion of the following:
The first version of the Categorical Imperative and how it would specifically apply in these two situations (hint, you have to say what the maxim would be and
what duty would be generated according to it).
The second version of the Categorical Imperative and how it would specifically apply in this situation.
Explain one criticism of both Mill and Kant. Afterward, argue for which ethical approach, on your view is superior. Be specific and provide reasons for your
claim.
