FINAL EXAM for ETHICS

Please answer the following Cases in the perspective of Deontological Ethics:

Case Study 1: Killing one person to save five hundred people

Questions for discussion:

1. According to Kantian deontology, is it moral to one person to save five hundred

people?
The moral of the passage is that we cannot just allow people to engage in wicked deeds and
enter the realms of evil. Kantian deontology holds that killing is immoral regardless of the
repercussions, thus if we can stop them from doing it, we must (it is our moral responsibility).
For instance, the captain’s life and death become a means to a goal in accordance with the human
formula. The Buddha was more concerned with using himself as a means than using the
captain’s life and death (to safe the captain from the evil realms). Kant will still consider it to be
unethical.

2. With his compassion captured by the saying “If not me going to hell, who will go
there?”, the Buddha killed one person to save five hundred people. What are the
differences between the presuppositions of the Buddha and those of Kant?
According to Kant, murdering someone reduces them to a mere tool. The Buddha, on the
other hand, was willing to accept the role of the means in the story and treated the captain as a
subject. Buddhism respects the story’s narrative since it has the belief in rebirth and the
deliverance of all beings.

3. Can the above story point out how to make up the inadequacies of deontology?
Explain your answer.
Deontology uses only reason when thinking, hence it is unable to resolve all moral
quandaries. The same way in the fiction, even if a murder occurred, we would be unable to stop
it (taking the initiative to kill the captain is immoral). In this Buddhist tale, the main concept is
how to save sentient beings in that specific circumstance (this is related to the idea of virtue,
which will be introduced in detail later). Deontology’s rigidity may be compensated for by this.
 Case Study 2: The Story of Rahab and the Israeli Agents

Questions for discussion:

1. From the perspective of deontology, is Rahab’s act of lying to the soldiers moral?
Deontologically speaking, lying and solely taking one’s own interests into account failed the
universalizability test. These concepts are immoral because they view people solely as a tool. We
won’t mention religious obligations here because they differ from rationally generated
obligations.

2. From the perspective of utilitarianism, is Rahab’s act of lying to the soldiers moral?
From a utilitarian viewpoint, we have no basis to determine whether Rahab’s deception was
moral because we are unable to determine how many people were impacted or how it affected
those people. Students may bring up the possibility that releasing the agents could result in the
Israelite army destroying Jericho and carrying out a massacre. Students may also argue that
turning the agents over to the army would have produced a different outcome and prevented the
city’s downfall. But with the knowledge at hand, we are unable to estimate the happiness of the
majority; this is one of utilitarianism’s drawbacks.

3. Does Rahab’s moral dilemma involve a conflict between duties? Do you agree with
her decision?
The moral dilemma of Rahab includes the conflicts of two duties: “protect the family” and
“be honest”. The former presumes that no matter she lied or not, the city would be destroyed by
the Israelite army, while lying could save her family.
 Case Study 3: Daniel in the Lions’ Den

Questions for discussion:

1. The administrators have no evidence to prove the accusation of ‘worshiping another

god’. Daniel would not be killed if he denied it. Why did he still make the frank confession?
Daniel fulfilled the obligation of “being honest” with his candid confession. Deontology
views “to be honest” as moral since it can pass the “universalizability test.”

2. From the perspective of deontology, do you think Daniel’s frank confession was a
moral decision?
In terms of utilitarianism, Daniel has two choices: Alternative A: Daniel rejected the charge
and might be dissatisfied as a result of lying and being disobedient to God. The inability to
successfully indict him would also anger Persian administrators. As Daniel was saved, the
Persian King would rejoice. Daniel fully confessed, which is option B. Although he had no fear
of dying, he believed that by acting in accordance with his obligations to be honest and true, he
would live longer and be happy. As they eliminated Daniel, the administrators might get pleased.
The Persian King would be hurt since he could be concerned about Daniel’s passing.

3. From the perspective of utilitarianism, do you think Daniel’s frank confession was a
moral decision?
In my opinion, Daniel’s confession was a moral decision from a utilitarian perspective.
This is due to the fact that Daniel prays for everyone as well as the managers who set up his trap.
A utilitarian does not care if an action is carried out as a result of lying, lies, or compulsion as
long as it results in the greatest possible profits for the greatest number of people, according to
the utilitarian ideology.