Morality: John Stuart Mill vs. Immanuel Kant I think the drug that saves the lives of everyone should be produced even if a child dies. It is always a tough decision to make, to take another person’s life. Political leaders have to make this decision when they go to war. Juries have to make this decision in death-penalty cases. Even doctors have to make the decision during surgery, if a pregnant woman is very sick. Does the health of a mother, or a victim’s family, or society mean more than one person’s life? Many societies seem to think so, and I agree with them. This believe is also one many philosophers agree with too. John Stuart Mill used “utilitarianism” to say that we should always try to get the most good out of any situation. What...The end:
.....peoples’ lives than you killed. Immanuel Kant is also not known as being a mean person, though he would save one innocent child instead of all of humanity. Aristotle was very concerned with justice, but I think he would also kill the innocent child because society benefits from it. I agree with Mill and Aristotle, because so many children die today for no reason, that at least one child should die for a very good one. Works Cited Aristotle, and Terence Irwin. Nicomachean Ethics. New York, NY: Hacket Publishing Co., 1999. Kant, Immanuel, and John Ladd. Metaphysical elements of justice: part I. New York, NY: Hacket Publishing Co., 1999. Mill, John Stuard , and John Gray. On Liberty and Other Essays. New York, NY: Hacket Publishing Co., 1978.