Ethical Dilemma: The Good Vs. The Right

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

Ethical Dilemma: The Good vs. The Right

The question whether there is a plausible moral difference between killing and letting die has been a subject of discourse amongst philosophers for a very long time yet there has not been any consensus. Morality questions have flourished with time with people using various ethical theories to support their moral standing. Foot presented two ethical cases, Rescue I and Rescue II, whereby an individual had to choose between saving the lives of five people against that of a single individual. The situations in the two scenarios differ, but the resultant effects of the decision are the same; either the death of a single individual or the deaths of five party people. This creates a moral paradox and stimulates the need to understand what morality entails considering two major opposing morality systems could be applied to this particular ethical dilemma. Deontological and Utilitarianism crossroads calls for a thoughtful approach towards these two cases.

First of all, it is imperative to understand that the two cases presented are similar except for the position of the one individual. In the Rescue I scenario, the one individual is already in danger and need immediate attention just like the five other party people. The moral question that is involved in this question is the choice of letting which party to die since there is no possible way to attend to both parties. On the other hand, the case number two presents a case whereby an individual who is not in immediate danger is standing in the way of rescuing five other people whose lives are in an active danger. The moral question in the case two is whether to kill one person to save five people. Normally, it is assumed that letting to die is better than killing yet the resultant effect is the loss of life. Choosing to rescue five people over one person is ethical but the morality of what it takes to achieve such outcome brings about the moral dilemma. Should one focus on the end or the means to the end or both?

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a morality system whose fundamental principle advocate for greater happiness. As such, John Stuart Mills would advise for the rescue of five people at the expense of one. This is because saving five people will yield more happiness than saving a single person. Consequently, the main focus of a person who approaches both cases from a utilitarian point of view would consider focusing on the five people who are on the verge of death. The principal utilitarian focus is on the outcome of the decisions and actions (Mill 156). Therefore, even before analyzing the means that drives us to the outcome, it is undisputed that Mills and any utilitarian would vote for the rescue of fives lives as opposed to one whether both are in immediate danger or not.

When we bring in the question of the means to an end, the Rescue I situation involves all six individuals stuck in situations that would only result in the loss of life if there is no immediate intervention. It will be logical to say that if no action is taken; all the six lives will be lost. Stuart Mill proposes for actions and decisions that result into minimized bad. Since the loss of all six lives is a bad outcome and the loss of one life in that particular situation would yield the best minimization of harm, Mill would advise for the saving of the five party people with the knowledge that one life would be lost in the process. Whether the principle is to minimize harm or maximize happiness, in this context, both in the application have a similar conclusion. Therefore, in the first case scenario, the decision to save one life at the expense of five is unacceptable to John Stuart Mill for the reasons that the greatest good was not availed to a great number of people. Thus, the decision did not yield the greatest happiness hence unethical.

In the second case, only five lives are in an immediate danger and the efforts to do good, which is to save the five party people, has got only one barrier, and that is the life of one person stuck in the middle of the road without a looming death threat. Any attempts to avoid harming this one individual will impede the success of saving the lives of the five party people. The only possible way to achieve the goal of saving the five people is running over the person