The Sheriffs Wife and Moral Duty

In The Sheriffs Wife, three characters are forced to make decisions that test
their morality, allowing for a comparison between the ethical theories of the
categorical imperative and act utilitarianism. Based on a theory by philosopher
Immanuel Kant, the categorical imperative asserts that moral duty is dependent on
reason and is unconditionally valid regardless of consequence (Kant, 502);
therefore, morality is found in the ethics of an action, not in its consequence.
Contrast to this, utilitarianism states that actions are right in proportion as they
promote the greatest pleasure for the greatest number and wrong if they promote
displeasure (Variants of the Utilitarian Theory). In this, morality is found in the
ethics of consequence, not in the action itself. Using these two theories, the decisions
made in The Sheriffs Wife can be evaluated to provide contrasting views on
morality.
The story begins with Alma, the sheriffs wife, overhearing a conversation
between the sheriff and his deputy concerning a man, Moon, accused of murdering
two girls. After threats from the townspeople, the sheriff was forced to arrest Moon
to keep him safe; however, lynch mobs began to form around the jail, causing chaos
with acts of violence and talk of burning down the jail. The deputy proposed that he
and the sheriff give Moon over to the mob under the guise that he escaped, knowing
the mob would go after him and kill him. Although they both believed him to be
innocent, the sheriff agrees to the deputys plan as a means to avoid further unrest.
After Moons escape, he takes a horse to Almas house and asks her to lie to the

mob, telling them he headed toward the river instead of the mountains. Alma does
not want to tell a lie for fear of compromising her Christian values, but she
hesitantly agrees to do so in order to save Moon, although she is not sure he heard
her decision before he fled. When the mob confronts Alma, she tells them Moon
went toward the river, thinking she saved his life. Later, the sheriff tells Alma the
mob caught up to Moon at the river, killing him before discovering another man was
guilty of the murders. In the story, three decisions are made: First, the sheriff
decides to give Moon over to the mob; second, Alma decides to lie in order to save
Moon; third, Moon tells Alma he was headed to the mountains and, thinking she
would not lie, heads for the river instead. Using the categorical imperative and act
utilitarianism, the three decisions can be morally evaluated, allowing for contrasting
arguments as to the ethics of each decision.
Kant provides three formulations for his categorical imperative, the second
of which states, So act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that
of any other, in every case as an end and never as merely a means only (Kant, 502),
and based upon this reasoning, each decision was morally compromising. Kants
theory suggests that decisions should not be made based on potential consequences,
but on the ethics of the decision itself. By using Moon as a means to and end to
satisfy the demands of the mob, the sheriff and the deputy compromise their
morality. Under this formulation, Kants ethic could be used to evaluate Alma and
Moons dishonesty as morally wrong, as well. For Alma, she uses the mob as a
means to an end to save Moon, while Moon uses Alma as a means to an end to save
himself. Because a categorical imperative must be applied unconditionally under

any circumstance, the sheriff, Alma and Moon each made the wrong choice, despite
their intentions.
According to the theory of utilitarianismmore specifically distributive act
utilitarianismthe three choices can be evaluated under a different set of standards
and are not found to be as morally compromising as with Kants theory. This theory
argues that one should focus on the morality of the consequences of his or her
decision, not the ethics of the decision itself, and the decision is morally right if the
outcome produces more pleasure than harm (Mill, 515). Because the sheriffs
decision causes more pleasure for the mob than displeasure for Moon, he is not
morally compromised in his decision, nor is Alma in her decision to lie for Moon
because the consequence of her lie is saving his life. Moons decision to head for the
river instead of the mountains is also acceptable, as he was attempting to prevent
Alma from experiencing the displeasure of lying. If one were to evaluate the
decisions under rule utilitarianism, however, the answer would be less exact, as it
does not seek the decision that provides the most pleasure, but the one that follows
a general rule that provides pleasure. Though Alma and Moons decision would
remain moral, the sheriffs would not, as he compromised a legal system of justice.
The categorical imperative theory and the utilitarian theory provide
contrasting views on the morality of actions versus consequences. Though neither
is able to provide a faultless account for ethical action, each provides at least one
satisfying conclusion in regard to the sheriff, Alma and Moons decisionsKants for
the sheriffs decision, and utilitarianism for Alma and Moons. By utilizing both

theories, one could provide a valid argument for the best course of action in moral
decision-making.