Last class we talked about the situation with the axe murderer. We discussed what one should do in the event of a murderer breaking into a house and demanding to murder a friend. Some said that it would be better to lie and give the person "a fighting chance" than to immediately sell him out but what really is a fighting chance. How far is one supposed to go in order to save someone?
In season 2 of the Walking Dead. Rick is faced with a predicament. Randal was a boy who had previously tried to shoot them in a group battle. Randal was simply following orders and protecting his group. While in battle he was injured and abandoned by his comrades. Rick saved his life and brought him back their camp. The group could either trust him, lock him up and let him eat all their, food, or murder him. However they decide to go in a different direction and drop him off in the middle of nowhere with some food water and a knife. He would've been left ALONE in the middle of the apocalypse. Now the main question would be "what is a fighting chance". How much is one supposed to really do for someone in order to ensure their well being. At what point has one done their moral obligation and not simply thrown someone into a highly risky situation hoping for the best.
In this situation I suppose Kant would say that Rick had a "good will" he wanted to ensure the safety of his family. He also didn't want to execute an innocent/not innocent boy. He was planning on saving the boy while at the same time not going out of his way to let his safety impede with that of his family. This I believe is a "good will".
I believe that Mill would agree that this was a noble action as well. Mill wanted to produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people and by ensuring his family's safety he has made them happy and he did all that he could for the boy. However, one could argue that he would've agreed to execute the boy. This would 100% ensure the safety of the greatest amount of people at the simple cost of 1.
I agree that it is hard to determine how much is "enough". It makes perfect sense that given the situation you posed, it would make sense from both mill and kant's points. The will of the action is good while the greatest amount of people have some degree of happiness. The only question i would have is does keeping him alive cause the "greatest" amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people if he doesn't have any family that would mourn him. I ask this because even though they drop him in "the middle of nowhere" there is still a chance he finds them and kills them which would mean the family wouldnt be as happy as they would be had they killed him.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if killing the boy would have caused anyone the greatest amount of happiness, like what you said Jesse. The act of killing the boy wouldn't have given them any pleasure except knowing that he's not a threat to them. And if I'm correct, an injured boy with a knife couldn't kill all of the people that helped. I agree that Rick fulfilled the maxim of his action, which is keeping his family safe. However, one could call Rick and the group's actions as self-interested because they are they are trying to look out for the safety of themselves, while still being good people.
ReplyDeleteI feel like both Mill and Kant would find that keeping him alive and dropping him off would be the best decision.
ReplyDeleteWhile what Randal did was wrong, Rick made the best decision because first of all, he's just a stupid kid and he doesn't deserve to be killed because of the dumb things he chose to do. Secondly, he was following the orders of his group because he wanted to survive. Everyone's goal is to survive during the apocalypse. Lastly, Rick made a decision based on the happiness of his group and the well being of Randal. He obviously wouldn't want to kill Randal because of his stupid decisions made in the past, but he wanted his group to be safe as well. Rick gave him a fighting chance.
I understand why it would be hard to come to one solution. With wanting happiness for the most people would go with the killing the boy, Rick decided to do a good will on his part. Seeing the situation in which he would have wanted some one to treat him like he did with the boy. Rick gave him a second chance, and causing less pain for other people who might not have wanted to kill the boy. He would have wanted a second chance himself, and I think a greater good and some form of happiness is better then no good will and happiness.
ReplyDelete