David asked:

I need help with a question I am struggling to answer.

A boy falls off a dock twenty feet down and he is nearly about to drown. A man see's this going on
and jumps in with every intention to save the boy, but accidentally falls on the boy and kills him. The
question is how would Kant, Mill, and Aristotle react to this situation? Think in terms that — Kant
refers to one's intentions, Mill refers to one's conscience, and Aristotle refers to one's appropriate
virtue. Also which of the philosophers is right/wrong? and Why?

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

To begin with, I don't think that Kant thinks that intentions are what make an action moral. Intentions
what are thought to be the probable consequences of an action, and Kant does not think that the
probable consequences of an action are morally relevant. Kant talks about the motive of the action,
and, in particular "The Good Will." The motive of the action must be the performance of your duty for
the sake of duty, and not for any consequences that may ensue. If it was the man's duty to save the
boy, then if the man did it for that motive, then the consequences do not matter, and the man
performed morally.

And I don't believe that Mill thought that acting from conscience was a factor in deciding whether a
certain action is moral. For Mill, unlike Kant, it is the intention to perform an action which conforms to
the Principle of Utility, that makes an action moral. If the intention was to perform an action whose
consequences were likely to cause "the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected
including the agent" then the action was a right action. It might be argued that the would be rescuer
action could be judged in this way. The fact that a tragic accident occurred would not matter.

As for Aristotle, Book Three of the Nichomachean Ethicsseems to me most pertinent to your
question. Here, Aristotle talks of voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary action. He also states that
intentions are crucial for virtue: that is, the intended consequences of the action. Aristotle presents
two classes of action in which a man would not be held responsible for the consequences of his
action: compulsion and ignorance. A man who is forced to do something is not to blame for the
consequences of his action; and neither is a man who does something in ignorance of the
consequences. Accident would, I think, fall under the general category of ignorance. (If the man, for
instance, stumbled on a small stone he could not reasonably be expected to avoid under the
circumstances.)

So all three philosophers would have held that the man (who had the best of intentions) was not to
blame for what happened. But Kant would not have allowed the action was a moral one unless it was
done from the sake of duty. The Mill and Aristotle would, I think have given moral accolades to the
man, while, of course, excusing him.

Ken Stern

89