Surviving Famine: The Kantian Dilemma
Surviving Famine: The Kantian Dilemma
Say your family and you are struggling to meet your basic needs such as food during a harsh famine. Your basic instinct is to acquire food by any means necessary. One way you could get food is by stealing it from your neighbor. In this essay I will examine whether this issue is morally right. I will argue that by using Kant’s End in itself theory, stealing food from your neighbor in time of famine is morally wrong. Kant’s end in itself theory is stated by him, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.” This explains that if we use another person, whether directly or indirectly, in actions we make that we not just use them to get what we want in the end, our maxim, but also in way that also benefits their personal ends, or goals, also. Another thing to look at is the person’s intentions for their action and whether or not they have a better chance of producing greater happiness for everyone involved and not just look at the amount of happiness or misery that has a chance to be produced from such actions. When looking at the scenario of stealing food from ones neighbor they need to weigh the happiness or misery that would be produced from both stealing the food and not stealing it and from there determine which action is the best. Looking at the first action, stealing the food, we can say that the food would benefit the thief’s family in the way that they can survive longer. The neighbor however would be hurt by this action because that food could have been used to feed their family. If the neighbor however chose to not steal the food the opposite would occur. The neighbor would benefit because they would have more food for themselves and thus be healthier. The person who chose not to steal food would suffer and so would their family because they have nothing to eat and could potentially
Say your family and you are struggling to meet your basic needs such as food during a harsh famine. Your basic instinct is to acquire food by any means necessary. One way you could get food is by stealing it from your neighbor. In this essay I will examine whether this issue is morally right. I will argue that by using Kant’s End in itself theory, stealing food from your neighbor in time of famine is morally wrong. Kant’s end in itself theory is stated by him, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.” This explains that if we use another person, whether directly or indirectly, in actions we make that we not just use them to get what we want in the end, our maxim, but also in way that also benefits their personal ends, or goals, also. Another thing to look at is the person’s intentions for their action and whether or not they have a better chance of producing greater happiness for everyone involved and not just look at the amount of happiness or misery that has a chance to be produced from such actions. When looking at the scenario of stealing food from ones neighbor they need to weigh the happiness or misery that would be produced from both stealing the food and not stealing it and from there determine which action is the best. Looking at the first action, stealing the food, we can say that the food would benefit the thief’s family in the way that they can survive longer. The neighbor however would be hurt by this action because that food could have been used to feed their family. If the neighbor however chose to not steal the food the opposite would occur. The neighbor would benefit because they would have more food for themselves and thus be healthier. The person who chose not to steal food would suffer and so would their family because they have nothing to eat and could potentially