philosophy homework....boo.

[jen-marie]

Read the following story/dilemma (from the philosopher Bernard Williams) and explain in good detail (1) what Mill would argue Jim should do and why and (2) what Kant would argue Jims should do and why. In answering the “why” portion of the question I expect a reasonably detailed account of the moral theory of each philosopher.


“Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of twenty Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest's privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. Jim, with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of a gun, he could hold the captain, Pedro and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work: any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed, and himself. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?”

what the hell

[jen-marie]

No responses?

[*Dawn*]

just wait til my dh gets home give him a few minutes...he has his BS in Philosophy i'm sure he can help!

[jen-marie]

oh my good god that would be amazing!!!

[Germanchick]

Very interesting question. I loved my philosophy classes in high school and college. If I could remember Kant's and Mill's positions I'd gladly help. lol

[USMCSGTsGirl1239]

Mill:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism_%28book%29

Kant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundw...ysic_of_Morals

Especially

Kant and utilitarianism Throughout his work, Kant does not encourage acting in order to attain happiness or any supreme state of pleasure. That action is also the source of all sorts of evil, so it cannot be both good and evil. "They can also be extremely bad and hurtful . . . power, wealth, honour, even health and that complete well-being and contentment with one’s state which goes by the name of ‘happiness.’" (p 61, emphasis his) The categorical imperative demands that we work for the universal good without any regard for our own happiness. In the same way, our actions towards others should be irrelevant of our own happiness. "[E]very rational being, exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means for arbitrary use." [8] By nature of being rational deserves what Kant calls an end, "a subjective ground of its self-determination.” [9] In simple words, when we ignore ourselves and think of the good of another, we will treat them well.

(because the above is stating his position in the context of the opposing theory of utilitarianism, and Mill)


I hope that helped a little bit point you in the right direction. I remember the basic concepts, but I'm several years out of philosophy so my brain was in terms of answering the question as it should be.

[*Dawn*]

Originally Posted by jen-marie Read the following story/dilemma (from the philosopher Bernard Williams) and explain in good detail (1) what Mill would argue Jim should do and why and (2) what Kant would argue Jims should do and why. In answering the “why” portion of the question I expect a reasonably detailed account of the moral theory of each philosopher. “Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are a row of twenty Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of them several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of the inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protestors of the advantages of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest's privilege of killing one of the Indians himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion, the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, then there is no special occasion, and Pedro here will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived, and kill them all. Jim, with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of a gun, he could hold the captain, Pedro and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work: any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed, and himself. The men against the wall, and the other villagers, understand the situation, and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?” what the hell

OK in order to answer the question you need to be familiar with both Kant's and Mill's moral philosophy. Kant was a utitlitarian meaning the moral action is the one that serves the greater good. So you have to aske your self which is a greaet good; letting the protestors die to serve as an example to the rest of the protestors or letting most of them live. This question itself is loaded. Is it a greater good to allow the state to reign without protest or is it the greater good to let these people be martered for their cause?

Mill's position is more libertarian. He was on of the philosophers who influenced Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Decloration of Independence. So you have to phrase your anser in a way that puts the liberties of individuals in the spot light. This might imply that you let them all die. However, what about their freedom to live their lives having learned their lesson not to protest their state?

Remember it is philosphy. The only right answer is the well reasoned one.

[Cheeky Monkey]

jim should killl the captain and hope that the men under him dont really want to kill the indians either, personally i'd rather die for killing an evil man than living the reat of my life with the blood of the inocent on my hands.

[jen-marie]

Ughh.. I get the whole Mill thing with the like Greatest Happiness Princepal with the little math problem he says we should all use to make decisions.. Mill would pick one guy to kill because it would be the "best" decision because overall it would make more people happy.


But Kant says that its all about good will and universal law and duty... but I don't get how to apply that to the situation at all!!!!!
aklfja'slkdfja

screw college lol.



Thanks for your help guys!