NOTE: I know that someone is bound to screw this up, so I'm gonna try and make this clear--don't answer the dilemma. Answer the freaking question that I have clearly stated in bold.
My philosophy professor on Kantian Ethics once told me that this dilemma is not only a dilemma for Utilitarians, but one for Kantians as well:
"Suppose that all moral agents--except one--were suffering from a severe headache that was not so severe as to manifest and interrupt their way of life but severe enough as for them to notice its constant existence. Suppose that the only cure for this kind of headache is to kill the only moral agent that doesn't have it. Do you kill the moral agent or do you not kill the moral agent?"
My question is this: why/how is this a moral dilemma for Kantians?
Of course, I could ask my professor about this, but he's apparently out of state til' the spring semester.
Any action can be uiniversalized, no? "Always steal when you can get away with it."
Not according to Kant. Theft is by definition predicated on the notion of property, but such a notion would not exist if a maxim of theft were to become universal. So theft is not universalizable, and hence, is immoral.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Moral dilemma because in Killing the moral agent who was exempt from the pain, for your own self-intrest or the collective's interest, you are using them as a means to an ends not an ends in themselves. Simple deontologist's response
My question is this: why/how is this a moral dilemma for Kantians?
Well, "Do we kill someone for greater good" is a moral dilemma for everyone. However, I would think for Kantians it... Well, I guess I can't say it wouldn't be, but someone who really subscribed to Kant wouldn't find it very much of a dilemma. The answer would be "no, you do not kill someone because it is wrong to kill." It doesn't matter if good would come out of it, to murder someone is WRONG.
Moral dilemma because in Killing the moral agent who was exempt from the pain, for your own self-intrest or the collective's interest, you are using them as a means to an ends not an ends in themselves. Simple deontologist's response
That's why you shouldn't kill the guy. It doesn't make the situation a dilemma. A dilemma would require some reason why you should kill the guy, as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
According to Kant, we must always "act in a way that expresses respect to the value of humanity which is unconditional and incomparable in worth."
In such a case as this, all of humanity, except one person, is suffering. By not killing this one person (which would relieve humanity of that suffering), it would seem that we would be showing disrespect to the value of humanity and saying that this one person's life is more important than humanity's suffering.
However, if we killed that one person, we would also be showing disrespect because the action of us sacrificing the life of one human being for the benefit of other human beings is a reflection of us saying that the value of one human being is less than the value of a thousand, if not, more. This would contradict Kant's claim that the value of humanity is "unconditional" (cannot be compromised) and "incomparable" (cannot be compared).
And unlike Utilitarians, Kant does not adhere to a consequentialist principal where one value can be greater than another. Thus, a Kantian cannot say "do not kill the man" because then that would mean they would be prioritizing certain Kantian values (do not use human beings as a means to an end) over others (act respectfully to humanity) when those values, according to Kant, are all equal.
Okay, so I recently to one of the grad students who was studying with the Kantian professor that I was talking about. After hearing him tell the account of how the dilemma went, I realized that the one offered was very misleading. I apologize on that account. Knowing better now, I'll reiterate what the grad student said (hopefully I'll get this right):
The dilemma follows as such: suppose that a certain number of people were suffering from a headache with a severity that was so strong that, when considering the number of people suffering from it, would equal to the same value as one average human life. Now suppose you're in a position where you have the power to either cure these people of their headaches or save a life, but not be able to do both. Which one do you go for?
So when I asked the grad student if he thought that this could be a Kantian dilemma, he told me that, at least in face value, there didn't seem to be any sort of a dilemma going on for a Kantian ethicist. However, he did remember that our professor mentioned this situation before under the context of Kantian ethics, but he can't remember what it is about. Thus, it seems things could go out either: A) This is not a Kantian dilemma at all or B) This is a Kantian dilemma. If B, then an explanation is needed.
Alas, the best thing to do right now I guess is to just ask the professor himself.
Also, can anyone find this dilemma online. It's supposedly called "Lives Over Headaches."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Likewise
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My philosophy professor on Kantian Ethics once told me that this dilemma is not only a dilemma for Utilitarians, but one for Kantians as well:
"Suppose that all moral agents--except one--were suffering from a severe headache that was not so severe as to manifest and interrupt their way of life but severe enough as for them to notice its constant existence. Suppose that the only cure for this kind of headache is to kill the only moral agent that doesn't have it. Do you kill the moral agent or do you not kill the moral agent?"
My question is this: why/how is this a moral dilemma for Kantians?
Of course, I could ask my professor about this, but he's apparently out of state til' the spring semester.
1. Secular Humanism
2. Secular Millenarianism
b.Transhumanism
c. secular altruism
4. Existentialism
5. Intellectualism
6. Atheism
7. Realism
b. philosophic
c. contructive
9. Egalitarianism
b. feminism
11. Liberal conservatism
12. Anti-consumerism
13. Reductionism
Many suffering, or a life.
Thanks To KrackShott
Old extendo moved
This is the utilitarian dilemma. Pure Kantians aren't supposed to make this sort of judgment. (Although "threshold deontology" does exist.)
Has anyone tried applying the categorical imperative to the dilemma itself? Which course of action follows a universalizable maxim?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not according to Kant. Theft is by definition predicated on the notion of property, but such a notion would not exist if a maxim of theft were to become universal. So theft is not universalizable, and hence, is immoral.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, "Do we kill someone for greater good" is a moral dilemma for everyone. However, I would think for Kantians it... Well, I guess I can't say it wouldn't be, but someone who really subscribed to Kant wouldn't find it very much of a dilemma. The answer would be "no, you do not kill someone because it is wrong to kill." It doesn't matter if good would come out of it, to murder someone is WRONG.
That's why you shouldn't kill the guy. It doesn't make the situation a dilemma. A dilemma would require some reason why you should kill the guy, as well.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I suppose that someone thought it was a dilemma for Kant was merely because our immediate instinct is just to kill the guy and get done with it.
According to Kant, we must always "act in a way that expresses respect to the value of humanity which is unconditional and incomparable in worth."
In such a case as this, all of humanity, except one person, is suffering. By not killing this one person (which would relieve humanity of that suffering), it would seem that we would be showing disrespect to the value of humanity and saying that this one person's life is more important than humanity's suffering.
However, if we killed that one person, we would also be showing disrespect because the action of us sacrificing the life of one human being for the benefit of other human beings is a reflection of us saying that the value of one human being is less than the value of a thousand, if not, more. This would contradict Kant's claim that the value of humanity is "unconditional" (cannot be compromised) and "incomparable" (cannot be compared).
And unlike Utilitarians, Kant does not adhere to a consequentialist principal where one value can be greater than another. Thus, a Kantian cannot say "do not kill the man" because then that would mean they would be prioritizing certain Kantian values (do not use human beings as a means to an end) over others (act respectfully to humanity) when those values, according to Kant, are all equal.
Letting some people deal with some headaches, in the face of the aforementioned as the alternative? Doesn't.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Of course. But man is his own enemy.
It depend's on the will of the people and how they value life. Humans have lost value of another's life. People will kill just to be slightly happier.
Thanks To KrackShott
Old extendo moved
EDH:
Niv-Mizzet
Legacy:
The Rack
Modern
Venser, the Sojourner Control
There are non-Kantian deontologists. "Kantian" is more specific.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The dilemma follows as such: suppose that a certain number of people were suffering from a headache with a severity that was so strong that, when considering the number of people suffering from it, would equal to the same value as one average human life. Now suppose you're in a position where you have the power to either cure these people of their headaches or save a life, but not be able to do both. Which one do you go for?
So when I asked the grad student if he thought that this could be a Kantian dilemma, he told me that, at least in face value, there didn't seem to be any sort of a dilemma going on for a Kantian ethicist. However, he did remember that our professor mentioned this situation before under the context of Kantian ethics, but he can't remember what it is about. Thus, it seems things could go out either: A) This is not a Kantian dilemma at all or B) This is a Kantian dilemma. If B, then an explanation is needed.
Alas, the best thing to do right now I guess is to just ask the professor himself.
Also, can anyone find this dilemma online. It's supposedly called "Lives Over Headaches."