Question

Philosophy: Suppose that a person A saves a child from drowning because she will be rewarded for doing so, and suppose another person B saves a child from drowning because he wants to help the child. Discuss whether Rand, Kant, and Mill would think that there is any difference, with respect to moral value, between the actions in these two cases. Critically discuss the bases for their assessment and the main factors that support their judgments. Which position do you think provides the best account of a standard for making moral judgments? Why?

Answer 1

Ayn Rand’s Rational Individualism suggests that Man is a heroic creature with productive achievements that makes him happy.In this case the man who saves the child is a hero who derives happiness from the act of saving a child’s life and this will be his achievement from which he will be satisfied.

Kant’s deontological moral theory proposes the categorical imperative where Kant asks everyone to be exemplary that would be set as a benchmark for others to follow. Before you want others to follow something, you practice it in your life. The man who saved the child’s life set an exemplary act to others that we should save other’s life without being selfish.

Mill’s principle of Utility suggests that the act or utility should bring maximum happiness to maximum people and in this case by saving the child, the man is happy, the child is happy, the child’sfamily is happy and the onlookers are happy.

Although all the concepts, in my point of view, Mill’s view sets the benchmark moral concept because the ultimate aim of life is to be happy and maximum happiness for more number of people is derived from Mill’s Principle of Utility concept.