Ethical philosophies are based on essentially two basic moral principles or mora

Question

Ethical philosophies are based on essentially two basic moral principles or moral reasoning:

- Consequentialist - locates morality in the consequences of an act (ex. utilitarianism)

- Categorical - locates morality in certain absolute moral requirements or categorical duties and rights. To help explain the above I have two scenarios. he Case for Cannibalism: introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive.

In 1st scenario: killing one person to save the lives of five others and 2nd scenario: doing nothing, even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothingwhat would you do? What would be the right thing to do?

REQUIRED: First, I want you to give me some feedback on these two scenarioes. What would you have done in each scenario and why. Keep that to about 100 to 150 words.

Explanation / Answer

The first scenario demonstrates the attributes of a Consequentialist. It is the Utilitarianism approach that makes the Consequentialist. People under this category believe that they are morally appropriate to take a decision due to the consequences. Most people benefit due to the act. The cabin boy was murdered for the survival of the five other people. This is morally permissible for a Consequentialist. On the other hand, the second scenario demonstrates the attributes of a Categorical person wherein there are moral requirements or categorical duties for the action. The Consequentialist states that it is not morally permissible for such an act though it benefits others.

Personally speaking, I would not accept the concept of a Consequentialist. It is religiously and morally not permissible or not correct to murder the cabin boy. A murder is a murder irrespective if the cabin boy gave his consent or not. Though the survivors had many relationships depending on them, it is not fair to murder the cabin boy. They can seek other options for survival rather than to feed on the cabin boy. This is an act of cannibalism which is not morally correct. Though Bentham states about Consequentialist, it is the Categorical approach that is pertinent in this situation. Thus, it is categorically wrong to murder a person. It is because the cabin boy has the right to live.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse E
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.