Question

3. Consider this case. Jack, a Ph.D. in biochemistry, has trouble finding a job in his field. He ends up taking a job as a gas station attendant just to make ends meet. But his family is large and they barely scrape by. A friend of his from college tells him about a new position opening up at some east coast company. He would be perfect for the position. However, he would be doing research that contributes to biological weapons. Jack was an activist against biological warfare in college. His friend argues that he should take the job anyway since someone else will take it if he doesn't. The weapons will be made whether he participates or not. But if he participates then he can take care of his family. Moreover, his friend tells him, the only other candidate is a man without a family and who already has a well-paying job. What, according to utilitarianism, should Jack do? Explain and justify your answer. What would a Kantian say Jack should do and why? Explain and justify your answer.g

Answer 1

Answer:

According to Utilitarianism, Jack should not take the job offered by his friend for the making of bio weapons. The reason is that utilitarianism believes in the ethics that will produce and work in the path of the greater good as product.

Whereas according to Kantianism, Jack should take the job because it is a work opportunity and focuses on the work rather than the outcome of it. If something is right, it is right regardless of how wrong the outcome might be.

The only difference between the two is that utilitarianism focus on greater end product whereas kantanism is opposite to it.