HE JIAXIN T 19

Utilitarianism, as put by Bentham, “is the idea which locates the moral worthiness of
an act in its tendency to maximize the net overbalancing sum total of pleasure over
pain for all parties concerned”[ CITATION Tho10 \l 2052 ]. A utilitarian approach brings
the best outcome for the most number. The categorical imperative, or the ethics of
duty, is essentially prescriptive as it requires us to adhere to certain duties and rights
regardless of consequences. According to Kant, “act only according to that maxim
whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal
law”[ CITATION Imm97 \l 2052 ].

In the said case, four men were cast adrift on the sea when they finally reached the
stage whereby should they not eat or drink they would most probably die before being
rescued. Assume at that stage there was no sail in sight, nor any reasonable prospect
of relief. This essay aims to examine the possible solutions to the problem based on
Bentham’s utilitarian and Kant’s categorical imperative philosophies, and finally
decide on a most appropriate one.

Following Bentham’s principle of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”
and moral issues aside, intuitively we would choose to sacrifice one man’s life for the
other three to feed on in order to survive. Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus says that we
should sum up all values of all the pleasures on one side, and those of all the pains on
the other, with respect to all the interests of all parties concerned. If there are more
pleasures than pains, the act is ought to be carried out [ CITATION Jer89 \l 2052 ]. In the
said case, the direct pleasures and pains appeared to be produced by killing one man
are three men’s pleasures of survival and one man’s pain of death. Subsequent
pleasures produced include three families’ pleasure of regaining loved ones and
financial support; subsequent pains include one family’s pains of losing loved one and
financial support, and three men’s guilt of murder. Here we don’t account any of their
friends as stakeholder because it would be too hard to value and calculate. The
utilitarian calculation draws the conclusion that one man’s suffering produces more
happiness for the other three. Furthermore, Parker the English boy is chosen since he

Page 1 of 7
 HE JIAXIN T 19

was an orphan. Value of pain produced by his death appears to be less than that
produced by the death of any other man who has a family, and so is the pleasure upon
Parker’s survival. Therefore killing Parker for the others to feed on produces “the
greatest happiness for the greatest number”.

PLEASURE PAIN
Dudley Stephens Brooks English Boy

Survival Survival Survival Death

To their families: the survival of Dudley Stephens Brooks

a a family a family Guil

Guilt Guilt
family membe membe
membe r r
r
Bread Bread Bread
feeder feeder feeder

One criticism of utilitarianism is the problem with quantifying and aggregating all
values. One question is how we should value guilt. Guilt is very subjective and
dependent on many variables such as religion, environment and time as guilt tends to
increase over time. One way to resolve this is by examining the contemporary
community to see how, as a possible stakeholder, it is affected. The early 19 th century
was rife with instances of explorers and seafarers resorting to cannibalism for
survival. The infamous sinking of French ship Medusa in 1816 and the Essex of
Nantucket by a whale both lead to cannibalism out of desperation among
survivors[ CITATION The10 \l 2052 ]. Assume one of the four men in the said case knew
of such practice under the desperate condition of being stranded on the sea, it would
certainly appear to him that his act of killing the boy for self-preservation is
justifiable. Hence value of pains of guilt of the three men seems inadequate to offset
the pleasures produced. The previous judgement still stands.

Page 2 of 7
 HE JIAXIN T 19

Utilitarianism appears to justify the killing of Parker in order for the three men to live
to be rescued. “The advantages of utilitarianism as an ethical theory lie in its intuitive
appeal and its apparent scientific approach to ethical reasoning”[ CITATION Sma73 \l 2052
]. Utilitarianism has been so dominant in moral philosophy, that it is argued that it is

the starting point for all ethical considerations. In fact human’s history is the process
of sacrificing the minorities for the greater happiness of the majorities. “It may be that
there is a survival advantage for species that practice utilitarian approaches in that
elevating group over individual needs may help primitive communities
thrive”[ CITATION Sin81 \l 2052 ].

Despite of its output power, practicality and clarity, utilitarianism lacks empathy and
respect for individual rights. The boy’s fate was, instead of at his own disposal,
decided upon the fact of him being an orphan and the weakest of all. Would he want
to sacrifice his life to save the rest? By asking this question, we are touching on
Kant’s categorical imperative.

According to Kant’s third formulation of Categorical Imperative, all individuals ought

to “treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at
the same time as an end and never simply as a means” [ CITATION Imm97 \l 2052 ].
Individuals are not just instruments for the sake of maximizing utility, however the
community might desire, because individuals are separate beings with separate lives
worthy of respect. Individuals are autonomous and intrinsically valuable. They have
rights and the capacity for free, rational and moral choice. The cabin boy does not
have any obligation to sacrifice his life to save the rest, thus killing the boy is unjust,
is violating the boy’s rights and is not right.

However what if the boy’s consent was to be asked, and thereafter granted, would it
be morally right to kill? To answer this question we need to examine to what extent
the requesting for consent would amount to a form of coercion. Under the dire
circumstances of the said case, we can rightly assume that four of them are on the

Page 3 of 7
 HE JIAXIN T 19

verge of emotionally breakdown, thus desperation and temperament would have made
it nearly impossible for the consent to be asked in a nice way. The boy, being the
youngest, the weakest, and the most unresisting of all, would be coerced into agreeing
on “donating” his body. The boy’s freedom of choice is deprived and his dignity is
violated. Therefore with the predetermination to kill the boy, they no longer have the
rights to ask for consent in the first place, not to mention whether consent can be
granted or not. The previous judgement by utilitarianism is overthrown and killing
Parker is ought not to be carried out.

We are now facing a dilemma: utilitarians would have taken the boy’s life and save
the most number of lives to produce the greatest happiness, but Categorical
Imperative philosophers would defend the boy and say “this is wrong, this is unjust,
and this is murder”. However if they don’t do anything, they will most probably all
die. Which one shall we act according to? Can we indeed strike a balance between the
two binding principles?

Let’s now look at Kan’s first formulation of categorical imperative for a different
solution. According to Kant, “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law” [ CITATION Imm97 \l 2052 ].
Categorical imperative is a universal moral obligation. What were the obligations
Captain Thomas Dudley had? It could be the duty, in the case of shipwreck, as a man
to preserve his life for himself and his family, as a captain to protect his crew, and as
an adult to protect the boy. If Dudley was a utilitarian, and adhered strictly to his
duties, he would sacrifice his life so that his crew would live. This solution seems to
be just perfect. There appears to be no question to whether it is morally qualified to
become a universal law; it maximizes utility of the society in the long-run, because
should everyone under all circumstances sacrifice their needs or lives for the greater
good, there would be absolute harmony in our society. However, something is wrong.
This is irrational according to Kant’s third formulation of man being an end in
himself. Kant believed that “man is not beholden to divine command or superstition,

Page 4 of 7
 HE JIAXIN T 19

but rather a notion of secular, rational morality”[ CITATION Mic07 \l 2052 ]. In the said
case, a more rational thinking suggests to take the life of the boy. Assume Dudley died
and the rest fed on his body, there was a high probability that the boy could have died
anyway because he “was extremely weakened by famine” and “had drunk seawater”
which was fatal in such situation. That Dudley’s sacrifice would have been
unnecessary. This argument leans towards utilitarianism and again violates the boy’s
rights.

Besides the discussion on obligations and duties, the key issue of any morality in
Kant’s eyes is that of universalisability[ CITATION Mic07 \l 2052 ]. An act is morally right
if other people in similar situations can act accordingly. We could resolve to see what
people do in similar situations and apply that solution to the said case. Assume four
patients are in need of different organ transplant, however, currently there is no
prospect of any organ donor, nor any medical technology that could substitute.
Common practice of getting an organ is from a voluntary donor. Assume similar
plights establish strong empathetic bonds among the patients that they may
voluntarily come to an agreement that the person who dies naturally first would
donate the organs to the rest. In this way the greatest happiness is produced and no
one’s dignity is violated. Same solution might apply to the cabin boy case: four of
them voluntarily come to an agreement that the person who dies naturally first would
allow the rest to feed on his body to sustain.

This looks like a good option, however some may argue what if they couldn’t wait
until the person dies naturally. The three men might most probably go on to kill the
boy anyway. While deciding on what one should do in such situation based on
morality, we need understand the limitations of moral philosophies. Moral
philosophies only tell us what is “ought to” be done, rather than what “is” to be done.
In the British High Court Judgement of the cabin boy case, it says “we are often
compelled to set up standards we cannot reach ourselves, and to lay down rules which
we couldnot ourselves satisfy”. The said case might be an exception to morality

Page 5 of 7
 HE JIAXIN T 19

because of its unusual degree of necessity involved in performing an act. Self-

preservation being the highest desire and duty of all, when human are on the verge of
dying, the rest moral obligations just seem surreal. It is always easier to judge by law
than by morality and say murder is forbidden under all circumstances, especially in
the said case. It is because law is strong and unequivocal, whereas our moral compass
is wavering and is easily influenced by compassion and our relationship with the party
concerned. The discrepancy between law and morality reminds us of the limitations of
men, of humanity. This might be the reason behind the commutation by the Crown.
The law has yielded, hasn’t it? Therefore as rational beings, the four men should aim
to act in the way to preserve each other’s dignity so far as it is attainable by their
efforts.

In conclusion, despite of utilitarianism’s output power, one usually has to abandon it

when the act concerned is as wrongful as murder. Most people favor the categorical
imperative approach because it values men’s dignity, however, adopting it
unconditionally would result in zero survival. Held in such an ethical dilemma, I aim
to resolve to strike a balance between the two philosophies by giving this option: four
of them voluntarily come to an agreement that the person who dies naturally first
would allow the rest to feed on his body to sustain. However given this seemingly
right option, we need to understand the limitations of moral philosophies which might
not apply under dire circumstances like that in the said case.

Word count: 1993

Page 6 of 7
 HE JIAXIN T 19

Reference
BakerJ.Dennis. (2009). The Moral Limits of Consent as a Defense in the Criminal Law. Faculty of
Law, King's College London.
BenthamJeremy. (1789). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
JJCSmart. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambrigde University Press.
KantImmanuel. (1997). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge:Cambridge
University Press.
Mautner, T. (n.d.). Consequententialism. Retrieved 10 22, 2010, from Utilitarianism Resources:
Consequentialism
Michael RobertsonMorris and Garry WalterKirsty. (Oct 2007). Overview of psychiatric ethics
V:utilitarianism and the ethics. Australasian Psychiatry.
PSinger. (1981). The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology. New York: Farrar, Straus and.
The Wreck of the Whaleship Essex. (BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A671492
W.Kymlicka. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Page 7 of 7