Ethical Dilemma In Rescue Two By Philippa Foot

The ethical dilemma presented in Philippa Foot’s thought experiment, involving Rescue I and Rescue II, forces us to consider how different ethical frameworks can lead to varying conclusions in similar situations. In Rescue I, a group of five people is in danger of being drowned by the ocean tide, and there is another person who needs rescuing. However, due to a lack of time, the rescuer decides to leave the individual to die and focus on saving the group of five people. In Rescue II, the same group of five people is in danger of being drowned by the ocean tide, but the road is narrow and rocky, and a single individual is trapped on the path. In this scenario, the rescuer must choose between driving over the trapped individual to save the five

According to this, the right action is one that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes overall suffering. In Rescue I, the rescuer has to choose between leaving one person to die to save five people from drowning. According to Mill's ethical framework, the rescuer should focus on the happiness and pleasure of the greatest number of people. Thus, Mill would recommend that the rescuer saves the five people, even if it means leaving the single person to die. This is because, in terms of overall happiness, saving five people would be preferable to saving only one person. However, in Rescue II, Mill would recommend that the rescuer does not drive over the trapped individual to save the five people. This is because the harm caused to the trapped individual would outweigh the benefits of saving the five people. The Principle of Utility, as defined by Mill, suggests that actions should be evaluated based on the amount of pleasure or pain they cause. In this situation, the Principle of Utility would apply by “counting” the number of people affected by each action. In Rescue I, the five people being saved would bring more pleasure to more people, thus making it the right course of action. In Rescue II, driving over the trapped individual would cause more pain than pleasure, thus making it the wrong course of

According to Kant, all individuals have inherent dignity and should never be treated as a means to an end, but as ends in themselves. In Rescue I, Kant would recommend that the rescuer saves the five people, even if it means leaving the single person to die. This is because, in his view, it is never morally justifiable to sacrifice one person for the benefit of others. In Rescue II, Kant would recommend that the rescuer does not drive over the trapped individual to save the five people, as doing so would be treating the individual as a means to an end. For the narrative for Rescue I and Rescue II Kant and Mill have very similar outcomes. Kant’s justifications for his recommendations stem from his belief in the Categorical Imperative, a universal principle that dictates that actions should only be taken if they can be willed as a universal law. In this situation, Kant would argue that it is never morally acceptable to use one person as a means to an end, as it violates the inherent dignity of that person. Therefore, in both rescues, the rescuer must prioritize the intrinsic value of every individual involved and act in accordance with the principle of treating all individuals with respect and