A child is drowning in the lake, case study help

DO YOU KNOW WHY YOUR FRIENDS ARE POSTING BETTER GRADES THAN YOU? — THEY ARE PROBABLY USING OUR WRITING SERVICES. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 15% discount by using the coupon code WELCOME15.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

(A) A child is drowning in the lake. A stranger jumps in to save the child. He succeeds in saving the child—but the reason that he jumped in was not to save the child, but rather to be seen as heroic to his girlfriend, who was hanging out with him by the lake. 

(B) A child is drowning in the lake. A stranger jumps in to save the child. But he’s not as good a swimmer as he had thought. The child drowns and he nearly drowns himself. While he jumped in with the intent of saving the child, he fails to do so, and instead makes himself sick for a week to come. And his girlfriend dumps him jk.

The first case seems to have the right consequences, but the wrong moral intent. The second case has the right intent, but a poor outcome.

Answer the following questions:

(1) Which case – A or B – would the utilitarians say involved a moral act? Which would Kant say was moral? Explain.

(2) Which act do you think was moral – A, B, both, or neither? Justify your answer using a logical argument.

Do you require writing assistance from our best tutors to complete this or any other assignment? Please go ahead and place your order with us and enjoy amazing discounts.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper