According to a Utilitarian approach killing the orphan boy would be a reasonable choice to make as it could be seen as doing the most good for the most people. Kantians beliefs would argue that killing the boy would be morally wrong as this approach brings about a firm belief that every person has rights and that all actions should be done with doing the right in mind. I believe a rational person would have chosen not to kill Parker, the orphan boy. Although the utilitarian’s views believe this murder would be justified in that it is killing one to spare three lives it isn’t evident at the time of the murder when the crew will be rescued, if ever. They could have killed Parker and then not be rescued for weeks leaving them again with a choice to murder to survive. I feel that stating killing the boy maximizes happiness for the other crew members families isn’t a strong argument, how can we not think of the happiness that the boy could have had throughout his life had he survived. …show more content…
Utilitarianism aims at achieving what is useful for people. It aims at the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Kantians defines morals in relation of absolute duty. They believe right behavior should be chose regardless of the consequences. The problem I see with Kantianism is its too absolute. Although I believe in doing what is morally right, all situations and scenarios aren’t the same. What if we are faced with another war, Kantians would think it would be wrong to murder no matter the circumstance which would jeopardize our entire country. The problem with the Utilitarian approach is its too relative. Morals would be a thing of the past and people would take the law into their own hands. This view allows much room for selfishness as people could feel it would be fine to kill someone if others don’t like the person