Noteworthy, the contention is premised on the morality question of the acts of two men who indulged in the same activity but the consequences of their actions differ.The argumentative basis is that should a person be held responsible for acts considered out of his or her control?.It is ideal that Ike be held responsible for his actions.It is true that Mike was in luck due to the fact that he was in a drunken state and driving thus the assertion that he could have encountered the same scenario as Ike but who knows, he might have handled the situation differently.
Notably,the Utilitarianism rule is that right actions emits happiness while the wrong actions bring pain(Mill,1863).According to utilitarian beliefs,an act is considered upright when it promotes happiness.This theory is premised on the greatest happiness principle which articulates that it is the prerogative that all humans should seek to achieve happiness for ourselves and others.Moreover, utilitarian s hold the view that all human actions should not only promote the greater happiness but also mitigate or prevent actions that might lead to unhappiness.
On this, Ike is guilty because his careless drunk driving led to the death of a pedestrian.It is expected that Ike should have mitigated or prevented the accident from occurring .From and Utilitarian point of view, Ike is guilty of promoting unhappiness.
Primarily,Kantian Ethics advocates for treating other persons as ends and not mere means to an end. Under the Kantian ethics,justice is of utmost importance.Kantian ethics are based on the supreme morality principle.The principles has been expressed in various definitions such as the formula of universal law,formula of the kingdom’s end and the Formula of the end in itself.Specifically,the end in itself formula stipulates that human beings ought to be treated as ends in themselves as compared to a means to an end(O’Neill,1994).
The act of treating others as means to and end or an end to itself is premised on a maxim.According to the Kant, a wrong is not wrong if no injustice was done. In addition,the moral dictation under this theory doesn’t pass judgement on the acts of persons which are not maxims.Under Kantian ethics, the intention determines whether a person wants to use the other as a means in this case ,due to the drunken states of Ike,I doubt that was his intention.
According to the top-down approach,every human life matters,there is equal valuation of all human beings and the desire to fulfill a person’s desire should not interfere with the other persons rights(Huemer,2004).There are various theorists under this approach,hedonists, preference satisfaction theorist,consequentialists and autonomy theorists.Remarkably,the consequentists theorists and utilitarian’s agree that moral acts produces best possible results for everyone involved.In my view the question as to what is morally right and wrong depends on the subject cultural point of view.
Different cultural codes exists thereby raising the issue of Cultural relativism(Benedict, 1934).Owing to the different cultural interpretations of what is morally right and what’s not,the actions of Mike and Ike might be judged differently (Thompson,1971).According to Benedict, the Eskimo way of lifestyle which permits husband to share their wives with guests might be viewed as immoral by others(Mackie,1988).Based on the divine command theory, a supreme being dictates what is right and wrong.
In my view, religion plays a critical role in dictating what’ is right and wrong thereby guiding the acts of the persons subscribing to that religion (Huemer,2004).Based on these three views,am of the opinion that the fact that both Mike and Ike partook in the same act of drinking and driving,their acts are morally wrong .However,the fact that Mike isn’t responsible for an accidental death of a pedestrian due to his own drinking and driving conditions,doesn’t make him guilty for the actions of Ike. Everyone is responsible for their actions.
From my comparison of the Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics, am of the opinion that KantianEthics is more satisfactory in this case because Ike lacked the maxim of using the dead pedestrian as a mere means. To support this view,it is clear that Ike had been drinking and his motive was to head home.The accident just happened out of nowhere, thus the assertion that Ike had no ill intentions towards the dead pedestrian for which he shouldn’t be judged harshly for.
Benedict, R. (1934).The challenge of Cultural Relativism. Westminster. Retrieved from https://www.westminster.edu/staff/nak/courses/documents/Rachels_Cultural_Relativism.pdf
Huemer,M.(2004).America’s unjust drug war.Owl232.net.Retrieved from https://www.owl232.net/papers/drugs.htm
Mackie, L .J. (1988).The subjectivity of values. n. d).Phil Papers.Org. Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/rec/MACTSO-30
Mill, S.J. (1863). Utilitarianism. Early modern texts. Retrieved from https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/mill1863.pdf
O’Neill, O. (1994).A simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics. Wordpress. Retrieved from https://philosophyintrocourse.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/oneil-a-simplified-account-of-kantian-ethics.pdf
Thomson, J.J. (1971).A defense of abortion. Colorada.Edu. Retrieved from https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm