I need a formal reply, This is the last reply for the class.
I need a formal reply, This is the last reply for the class.Formal Post “Morality and the Good Life” Should you ever find yourself stranded at sea with six other survivors this ethical paper may be the key the survival of your group. As energy reserves run low and other food sources like birds and fish the idea of cannibalism may increase in appeal. Using the arguments of duty-defined morality I will show the morally correct thing to do is not eat all of your companions one by one. Immanuel Kant and duty defined morals stand firm on the “custom of the sea”. Duty bound ethics would site laws that advised against cannibalism. Both laws from countries and the Ten Commandments laid down by the Judeo-Christian God instructing not to kill (Solomon and Higgins, 262). Immanuel Kant would appeal to our conscious. Kant would say that some action like killing another person for food would be morally wrong regardless of the good consequences (Solomon and Higgins, 270). Using the Kant’s categorical imperatives we should consider what would happen if the “custom of the sea” were to become a universal law (Solomon and Higgins, 263). This would mean that whenever anyone was hungry and had exhausted other means for food they would be morally right to kill and eat another person. The contradiction being that nobody would agree that eating other people would be a morally good idea. America may not have a “custom of the sea” but we had the Donner Party. Kant would also say that is would be wrong for the other survivors to use you as solely an end to their hunger (Pressler). The other survivors should respect my own goals to survive this encounter too (Solomon and Higgins, 265). Kant would go further that since your intentions are to kill a fellow survivor, then whatever the results, your actions are morally wrong (Solomon and Higgins, 264). Therefore, an argument using Duty Defined Morality says that nobody should eat anyone from our lifeboat. The other members of the lifeboat may counter with consequentialist ethics saying that the utility principal requires that I make the sacrifice for the greater good. Bentham’s happiness calculus would show that my pain would be outweighed by the six other survivors pleasure of eating again (Solomon and Higgins, 267). I would counter with my pain would be the ultimate sacrifice and that it should be of a different tier than their pleasure to eat. I would use John Stuart Mill’s “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” (Solomon and Higgins, 268). Mill’s approach to the happiness calculus with a qualitative model would give me an argument that makes their claim unethical (Solomon and Higgins, 269). Mills said, according to Solomon and Higgins, that some burdens placed on a minority are not justified even when the majority benefit (270). Another member of the lifeboat may counter with Epicurus. Stating that the good life is a life living for pleasure. Saying other members of the lifeboat would derive pleasure by getting something to eat. I would counter that Epicurus also encouraged the pursuit of simple pleasure (Solomon and Higgins, 249). Epicurus would have agreed with the idea to go on cruise that resulted in everyone being in this lifeboat he would not condone eating another member. Yet another member of the lifeboat might bring up the “custom of the sea” as a social contract. As a social contract where I surrender certain liberties for the good of the lifeboat. I would argue what protections or advantages am I, the victim, receiving for this “state” (Solomon and Higgins, 299). They all benefit from the food that we all desperately need. If this continues then who is the next weakest? It would degreed until the last person eats the second to last person on the boat. I would argue that nobody want to be first, next or last in that scenario. I would also point out to my fellow survivors that eating the weakest member of the lifeboat would be an example of Aristotle’s excess and not the mean (Solomon and Higgins, 272). Everyone on the boat should still have the positive freedom to live and not the negative freedom of not starving to death (Pressler). The idea of eating another human is not one of the practices a virtuous person may due. The virtuous person may instead show justice, courage and speak truthfulness at a time like this (Solomon and Higgins, 272). The truth is eating the sickest and the weakest person is probably not a good idea. If I am sick from something already then you eating my sickness will in turn make you sick too. Then everyone will get sick and that me showing courage to point out that logic flaw. A virtuous person would person would be a person that focuses on doing the right thing. There has to be a better way to survive on this lifeboat.Works CitedPressler, Charlotte. “Chapter 8 Handout.” 2020.SOLOMON, ROBERT C., and Kathleen M. Higgins. BIG QUESTIONS: A Short Introduction to Philosophy. 10th version, Cengage Learning, 2017, BryteWave, brytewave.redshelf.com/.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
