Dimitri Petriashvili - Final Paper –May 9th – CORC 1201
Gilad Shalid, an Israeli soldier was resized from Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian military groups in a cross-border raid and was dragged into Gaza, wounded in June 2006. He was relisted on October 8, 2011 as part of the deal between Hammas and Israel under which over 1000 Palestinian prisoners were to be freed. (The New York Times) Kantian approach that is used to solve this situation endangers lives of millions and encourages methods of terrorist. I will argue that Utilitarian approach would have been better.
The Kantian approach that’s adopted by the Israelis is basically Kant’s claim to treat humans “never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end” (513). This means that one human life shouldn’t be sacrificed, even if a thousand will be saved. All that matters is the initial duty to do good, the consequences are not of the concern. In the real life situation that is given to us, a soldier’s life was exchanged for a 1000 lives of prisoners, and no sacrifice of human life took place. The approach that Israelis took to fulfill the good duty and save a soldiers life is noble, but the problem is that through this approach, the Israelis can’t retaliate against terrorists, causing them harm. Knowing that the Israelis can’t retaliate, allows terrorists to take advantage over the situation. It also creates, within the terrorists, the idea that this type of scenario can be done again. Moreover, the 1000 that has been relisted will be acting to cause harm to those who imprisoned them. The balance between the two parties is very different. This situation has already shown its consequence, terrorist activity on the border of Israel has been continuing.
The Utilitarian approach would have more effect on the future and make it better by acknowledging the consequences to be more important than the initial action. Mill distinguishes...