Friday, October 9, 2015
Would you kill your son?
Imagine you and your family being hopelessly trapped in a concentration camp. Your son, exhausted from all the tourture, tries to escape, but fails. The guard catches him and sentences him to be hung, but there's a catch. You have to pull the chair from beneath him. If you don't pull the chair, your son, along with three others, will die. Now,I believe that Kant would agree to pull the chair, but not Mill? For what reason you may ask? For Kant, whatever will provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, the categorical imperative, would be his reasoning for pulling the chair. In this case, if you didn't pull the chair, three other innocent individuals lives would be at risk for the consequences of someone else's actions. Not to say that your son's intentions weren't good, but we must consider the lives of the other three people as well. In the case of Mill, I believe that he would not have pulled the chair because I don't think he could stand to live with himself afterwards. The thought of having to kill your own son would be devastating to him. And I wouldn't say he doesn't care about the other people, but he believes that he should be trying to achieve his own happiness. To lose someone close to you is hard enough but to have to kill them with your own hands? Mill would also not want to pull the chair because the consequences of his actions would be be bad and to him, the results of your actions play a great part in utilitarianism. So now it's your turn to decide. Would you rather kill your son, or have your son and three others killed by the hands of someone else?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to disagree with your statement that Mill would not pull the chair, killing his son. Mill would argue that, in this case, performing the act of killing one's own son is the preferred solution. Reason being is that you would save the lives of three others, therefore creating more happiness for more people. Also, Mill is not concerned with achieving one's own happiness. When we make a choice, we think of how the consequences with effect others, not how it will effect ourselves (even in the long run). Essentially, we are making a sacrifice for the benefit of others. Therefore, I would take Mill's approach and would kill my son. It is overall better to kill my son, although it would be extremely painful, than refusing to and not only having my son killed but three others. The latter is worse case scenario.
ReplyDeleteNow speaking academically and on the morals of the philosophers, most of us would say to kill our own son... but do any of us have kids and would actually know how that feels? Now thinking about how I would have to live with the mental torture of killing my own son, I most likely wouldn't be able to go through with it. That doesn't mean I don't agree with the theory of producing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of your arguments. I feel as if it was Kant he would definitely kill his son because, he is doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. But, I feel as if you can't really go either way because, not everyone has kids so those without would not know how that truly feels. Now with Mill I believe he would probably pull the chair because he believes in the consequences and the effect it would have on others. If you save your son you are killing three more people technically. Which leads to me saying I would probably kill my son, because if it was someone else's child I would want them to kill their child to save others as harsh as that sounds.
ReplyDeleteIn both arguments you showed each side and how both Kant and Mill would react. However, I do no think that someone would actually be able to go through with it because of actually having to kill their own son. There would be too much guilt to overcome and would probably lead to you killing yourself since the concentration camps were inhumane in the first place.
ReplyDelete