TO SPARE OR NOT TO SPARE: THAT IS THE ETHICAL QUESTION Date of Submission: February 11, 2005 by Submitted to: Humanities and Communications Humanities and Communications In Partial Fulfillment Of the RequirementsOfSpring 2005 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Prescott, Arizona A twenty-something year old Caucasian male engineering student travels from Prescott, Arizona to Friends ville, Tennessee during his summer and winter breaks from school. The length of distance covered in one trip is about 1800 miles. He drives a 1968 Ford Mustang. This car is in need of restoration, but is all-original. Because he is alone, this student cannot stop at anywhere that is not public.
Even a Rest Stop is too risky for a lone traveler. This student driver does not even drive at night. The dilemma begins at the half-way point of the trip, the middle of the Texas pan-handle on Interstate 40 East. This area has few gas stops and almost no rural or suburban areas. The student passes a car on the side of the road. This car is driving on a flat tire.
Unfortunately the only safe option for this student is to continue down the road and pray for the person in distress. The student-driver stops for gas at the only stop for another 50 miles. Like most gas stops in this area, it stands alone on this exit. The student-driver pumps gas into his car and goes inside to pay for the fuel.
The Essay on Finally Car Gas Mountain
A couple of years ago my family and I went on a vacation to the Great Smokey Mountains. About ten minutes into the trip we got hit by a motorcycle and it completely jacked up our car. We had to get a rental car which was a piece of crap with the smallest engine. We were delayed a couple of days because of the accident but it was finally time for us to leave. A ride that should have taken five ...
As the driver is about to leave, he is stopped by a 60 to 70 year old Caucasian male. This man has a flat tire. He recognizes the car that passed him earlier and asks for help. This man recognizes that the Mustang’s spare will fit his car, and he proceeds to ask the student if he would be willing to part with his spare. The moral dilemma begins. If the student gives the man the spare, his guilt for passing the man will be extinguished and it will be replaced with the satisfaction of helping another human being from being stranded.
However, this would leave the student without a spare tire for the last 900 miles of his trip. The three ethical systems being used to respond to this moral dilemma are Kant ism, Utilitarianism, and Epicurism. In this dilemma, there are two choices, and each system has its own way to respond. Kant would begin by criticizing the analysis of the consequences, because consequential ethics “lacks universality”, “leads to rules that violate our ordinary moral sensibility”, and “reverses the proper relationship between ethics and happiness.” (Symposia. 2005.
p. 51).
Kant would argue that the duty of the student is to, without thought, give the spare to the man. Kant would respond that one should follow instinct, and instincts should be the result of subjective, moral, dutiful actions done habitually. Kant would give the man the spare. The utilitarian, such as Stuart Mill, would analyze the consequences.
The doctrine of the utilitarian is “happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end.” (Symposia. 2005. p. 73).
This happiness must be experienced by the greatest number possible according to Mill. Mill would advocate giving the spare tire to the man, if the number of people that would benefit outweighed the number that would suffer.
However, if denying the man the spare benefited the greatest number of people, Mill would support the refusal to help the man. Mill would have analyzed the situation with the information that he had available. Since there was no other information about the man, he would only be able to analyze who would be affected in the student’s life. Mill would conclude that if the student were to get into trouble later, that the student’s family would be adversely affected.
The Essay on Mill And Kant Tell Us To Think For Ourselves
Immanuel Kant simply stated the creed of the enlightenment: Dare to know, (Kant 1). To thinkers like Kant, to achieve enlightenment was to gain release fromself-incurred tutelage[the] inability to make use of [ones] understanding without direction from another, (Kant 1). Enlightenment thinkers addressed this issue. They present to us the question; why is it so hard to think for oneself? They ...
Since this is the only group of people that Mill could guarantee would be affected, Mill would refuse the donation of the spare. Epicurus would begin by analyzing the mental consequences each action would have on the student-driver. If giving the man-in-need the tire brings the student closer to ataraxia, the Greek word for calmness and tranquility. If giving the man the tire causes the student to worry the entire trip, then Epicurus would advocate keeping the spare and continuing the trip. Epicurus would observe that the student would probably feel guilt if the man was not helped.
With this in mind, Epicurus would also note that the student would feel pressured by his guilt. In this case, Epicurus would advocate giving the man the spare. Kant is the only ethicist that would advocate a specific action. Mill and Epicurus follow a relativistic point of view. The only difference is the focus of where the happiness goes.
The final question comes down to what does one value most-duty, happiness of others, or peace-of-mind.
