Willow asked:

In war, innocent civilians have sometimes been used as "human shields" offering protection for
military forces from enemy attackers. To what extent would Kantians and Act Utilitarians condone this
behaviour?

============

Kant would not condone this behavior. That is because he opposes using persons as means or tools
for some end. Kant holds that persons have to be treated as "ends in themselves." This is one of the
versions of the Categorical Imperative.

An Act Utilitarian holds that actions are justified or condemned by their consequences. Will they
produce the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected by the action is the central issue.

I think that in the end, the Utilitarians would conclude that such behavior was wrong, although for very
different reasons than would Kantians, since they would argue that the consequences for good for the
greatest number affected would not justify such an action, but rather condemn it.

Kenneth Stern