In the case of the English sailors who were stranded for 24 days, it is not an easy task to determine what is considered morally permissible. In a situation as such, rational beings will be subjected to harsh conditions and hard decisions. Depending upon whom you ask, some may say that the cannibalism of a fellow rational being is gruesome, but permissible under such conditions and others may say that it is morally reprehensible and should never occur. Utilitarianism can be utilized to evaluate such situations by aiming to determine the goodness of the moral action. Immanuel Kant, as well, speaks of guidelines that could assess the morality of this case in the “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”.
Utilitarianism insists that a “utilitarian calculator” can provide a solution to such moral problems, the formula goes: In order for X to be moral, X must increase pleasure and decrease pain, must provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and the result must be that the end justifies the means. In the case of the sailors lost at sea, the question is whether or not they morally justified in killing and eating the youngest member of the crew. Here, X (the cannibalism of another rational being) must be proven to increase pleasure and decrease pain, provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people and the ends must justify the means, in order to be considered morally just by means of the Utilitarian calculator.
Within utilitarianism there are two main groups, Act Utilitarian and Rule Utilitarian. An act utilitarian would say that each individual situation is unique and must be judged on its own merit. I believe that an act utilitarian would likely say that though the act of X in this case isn’t encouraged, that in this specific situation it is morally permissible. When examined through the utilitarian calculator the act of X, for an act utilitarian seems to be morally permissible. In this specific situation the killing and...