Comparing Kant's 'Jim And The Indians' Dilemma

‘Jim and the Indians’ dilemma, many factors of the various fundamentals come into your mind and confuses the ethical choice you have to make for Jim.

However, I can say that no matter what the choice I decide through a dice throw is worse than deciding via Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus.

However, Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus do provide us some relieve to make a choice for Jim in the case of the Indians.

To choose the better way of making a decision, we must understand the fundamental principles involved and to compare the advantages and disadvantages provided by Kant and Bentham’s theories. This makes up the body of this essay.

Both Bentham’s Hedonistic Calculus and Kant’s theory of the Categorical Imperative provides people with a moral structure, to make moral decisions. However, both of them have benefits and flaws, they contradict each other in many ways therefore making

For instance, in war, we all know that lost in human lives are inevitable, thus making this theory nonexistent for non peace issues. It is also known that no two problems can be looked at in the same manner. Different issues need different approaches. I can give you another example here. Think of self defence and murder. They are classified under the same axiom; a maxim about killing someone. Are both entities the same? Shouldn’t they be treated differently?

We can look at Kant’s theory positives too, it is more practical in decision making. Kantian Morals draws the line difference between feelings and duty very clearly and does not confuse it. Even though there might be a temptation to behave out of personal feelings, morality is still universal here. It also portrays fairness by treating all humans in the same level in terms of