This
paper compares Rule Consequentialism (RC) and Kantian ethics by
examining their application to Bernard Williams' “Jim the botanist”
thought experiment, a difficult moral case. This is to explore the
relative strengths and weaknesses of these theories. By briefly
showing the key differences in the approaches, it should become
evident that, although both
are flawed, the two rule-based systems are not equally capable of
producing moral determinations.
Jim
is a foreigner captured by a government that has issues with the
natives protesting them. In an attempt to quell the protests, the
government has rounded up 20 random natives they plan to execute.
Since it is apparently rare that a foreigner would be there, Jim is
given the opportunity to save 19 lives, but he must personally kill
one. He has no reason to think that any of the natives are guilty of
a capital offense, but not killing one of them will result in all 20
of them dying.
This forced choice is meant to demonstrate that there may be times
which we think that it is acceptable to violate an absolute
prohibition in order to prevent additional violations.1
