Question

Consider the following scenario: A burning building, relatively structurally sound, is engulfed in flames, with 4 small children trapped inside. There are two people who must decide how to respond to the situation:

Granny: An 80-year-old misanthropic, pyrophobic, luddite, who saw her mother burn to death in a fire when she was younger. She's in relatively good health, although she uses a cane. She has a cell phone for emergencies, but she hates it.
Clark Kent: A 30-year, world-renowned firefighter who is on his way back from the latest firefighting championships. He has all his gear with him but, like Wolverine in the X-Men, has loads of superpowers, so he rarely needs it.
Explain, thoroughly, the relevant aspects of Aristotle's and Mill’s theories. In other words, what would Aristotle and Mill think is (morally) at stake in this scenario? Explain how Granny and Clark Kent should both respond to the situation of the burning building from both Aristotle's and Mill's perspectives. Would Aristotle require both Granny and Clark Kent to do the same thing? Why or why not? Would Mill? Make an argument explaining which philosopher gives the better moral guidance and which gives the worst. What's something that you would change to ameliorate the "worse" theory? Be sure to thoroughly explain your assessments here.

Options:
a. True
b. False

Answer 1

Aristotelian virtue ethics focuses on the individual acting according to their capabilities and role, while Mill’s utilitarianism emphasizes the outcome that maximizes happiness. Clark Kent would be expected to act under both philosophies due to his abilities, but Aristotle might not require Granny to physically attempt a rescue given her limitations.

Step-by-step explanation:

When considering the scenario of a burning building with trapped children and two potential rescuers with vastly different capabilities (the elderly misanthropic Granny and the superhero firefighter Clark Kent), Aristotle's virtue ethics and Mill's utilitarianism can guide us in determining how Granny and Clark Kent should respond.

Aristotelian ethics would suggest that individuals must act by virtue. For Granny, confronting her pyrophobia and attempting to rescue the children might not be a realistic display of courage given her physical limitations and traumatic past. Aristotle would likely argue that her moral action could be calling for help using her despised cell phone. In contrast, it would be virtuous for Clark Kent to use his firefighting skills and superpowers to save the children, as it aligns with his abilities and professional role.

From Mill's utilitarian perspective, the focus would be on the outcome that maximizes overall happiness. Both Granny and Clark Kent should take actions that lead to the rescue of the children. However, given Clark Kent's superior abilities, Mill would likely argue that he has a greater responsibility to act, as his intervention would ensure the best outcome. Granny's contribution would be to support in the best way she can, which might still mean calling for help rather than personally attempting a rescue beyond her capabilities.

In comparing both philosophers, one might argue that Mill provides more practical moral guidance for this scenario, making moral responsibility proportional to one's ability to bring about the greatest good. Aristotle's theory, on the other hand, might fall short in emergencies where the right action is not simply a matter of being virtuous but also about having the capacity to bring about the best outcome. To improve Aristotle’s theory, it could be modified to consider the effectiveness of an individual's actions in emergencies.