Jim and The Indians
“Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are twenty Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protesters of the advantage of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the prisoners himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, there will be no special occasion, and the captain will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived and kill them all. Jim, with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of a gun, he could hold the captain and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work; any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed, and himself. The men are against the wall and the other villagers understand the situation and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?”
(B. Williams, ‘A Critique of Utilitarianism’ in Smart & Williams, ‘Utilitarianism: For and Against’, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973)
Filed under: Ethics, Killing, Normative Ethics, Philosophy, Questions, Utilitarianism | 6 Comments
-
-
Recent Comments
Ben on Jim and The Indians Megan Jones on Jim and The Indians Rob Farrow on The Course nedved on A Defence of Abortion Augur on Armin Meiwes: Metzgermeis… -
Philosophy Classics- Philosophy Bites
- Jeff McMahan on Killing in War
- Richard Bradley on Understanding Decisions
- Tony Coady on Dirty Hands in Politics
- John Campbell on Berkeley's Puzzle
- Brian Leiter on Nietzsche Myths
- John Armstrong on What You Can Do With Philosophy
- Walter Sinnott-Armstrong on Morality Without God
- Sabine Doring on Emotion
- Ben Rogers on Pascal's Pensées
- Marilyn McCord Adams on Evil
This question is interesting – consequentialism might tend to sat that Jim is responsible for nineteen deaths if he fails to kill one person; deontology might say that Jim is responsible for the murder of one if he chooses to save the rest; I guess that common sense/a lot of people might say that while it might be the morally good to save the nineteen, Jim couldn’t be required to take either course of action – killing one person to save others is too difficult an action to require of someone.
So neither formal approach – at least simply speaking – deals with the situation in the typically acceptable way. A simple consequentialist approach seems to inappropriately blame Jim for failing to take an extremely challenging action that many people (emotionally speaking) might well find themselves unable to take. A simple deontologist approach doesn’t allow Jim to take an action which would save 19 innocent people. This approach might invoke the doctrine of double effect – separating the intended and merely foreseen consequences of Jim’s act – to explain why refusing to kill the one can be acceptable, as his intention is simply not to kill, and although he might forsee deaths as a result, these are not his intentions. But I don’t think that this solves the problem of showing how it can be considered immoral to save 19 people…
Is the distinction between (active) killing and (passively) letting die of any significance here?
WOW What a story. The story is immoral in itself. I have an assignment to do in philosophy about this story. What David Hume and Immanuel Kant would have said to do. very hard question. It’s like the story of the cliff where the mother has her son that is evil and another boy that she adopted that is a good boy and she has to choose to save one only because she is not physically strong enough to pull both of them. Then again, it would be more difficult if she had her 2 sons that she loved the same. WOWOWOWOW let me know what you would do.
Jim has no choice but to walk away. First, there’s no guarantee that the captain will honor his offer. He may just kill the other 19 anyway. Second, if Jim participates in the killing he is liable to be executed for committing murder. Third, Jim is not killing the twenty; the captain and his soldiers are. He has no moral responsibility for their deaths.
I am currently studying this in A2 Philosophy and i am now doing a 50 mark question about utilitarianism and integrity. I think that although Jim may feel guilty about killing this one person he will be able to take solace in the fact that he has saved the life of 19 people. If you look at it throught the teleological theory a decision should aim to produce the most benefit, so if Jim were to kill one to save 19 it would be okay because more people benefit.
I would become enraged that they are killing innocent people just because they dislike the government. I would attempt to kill the soldiers even if I fail and am killed in the process.