Ethical Evenings: The Desert-Island Scenario

Ethical Scenario/Question:

“I have promised a dying man on a desert island, from which subsequently I alone am rescued, to give his hoard of gold to the South Australian Jockey Club. On my return I give it to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, which, we may suppose, badly needs it for a new X-ray machine. Could anybody deny that I had done rightly without being open to the charge of heartlessness? (Remember that the promise was only known to me, and so my action will not in this case weaken the general confidence in the social institution of promising.)”

---

The Desert-Island Scenario: Defending Deontology

A dying man stranded on a desert island has requested that his fortune goes to the South Australian Jockey Club. Despite the original promise with the dying man, the funds are ultimately donated to the Royal Adelaide Hospital to fund an X-ray machine. With the act of (both mindful and mindless) promising becoming normalized in today’s society, there is a growing necessity to ponder such dilemmas that produce friction between pursuing the best for an individual and the best for all, highlighting a broader discussion on the morality of the decision to donate to the hospital. While utilitarians argue that directing the funds to the hospital would support the greater good for the greater number of people who will benefit from the improved medical equipment, deontological ethics emphasizes two formulations of the categorical imperative that directly challenge the utilitarian standpoint on optimific rules; therefore, I will argue that donating money to the jockey club is morally justified.

Deontological moral theory is focused on evaluating the morality of an action based on whether the action is right or wrong rather than considering the action’s consequences. Developed by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, Kantian deontology consists of categorical imperatives: commands that individuals should follow, regardless of their personal desires. The first aspect of the categorical imperative is the universalizability principle which emphasizes that one should “act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law without contradiction” (Kant 30). In this regard, if the fortune is given to the hospital, which means a lie has been told to the dying man, the maxim of lying should be universalizable. Nonetheless, similar to acts such as stealing or killing, lying cannot be deemed appropriate for all contexts without contradiction, ultimately failing to satisfy the first principle of the categorical imperative. Kant refers to the second pillar of the categorical imperative as the Formula of the End in Itself which underlines the importance of treating humanity as an end, not as a mere means; in other words, “[involving individuals] in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent” denotes the act of using people as mere means (O’Neill 18). By neglecting the dying man’s request to donate the money to the jockey club, the hospital is in a position of using the dying man as a mere means to purchase a new X-ray machine. As the dying man has passed away, he is unable to verbally (or in any other form) agree that the funds be used for the hospital. Thus, the decision to donate to the hospital indicates that the dying man has been manipulated by autonomous agents for their own benefits and desires. As the autonomous agent initially agreed to donate to the jockey club (i.e. lying to the dying man when he was alive), the dying man can no longer act autonomously as his decisions will be based on false information.

However, proponents of utilitarianism would argue that the morality of an action is based on the amount and quality of pleasure produced. Within utilitarianism, there is a distinction we must make between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism, which was primarily championed by Jeremy Bentham, refers to the process of judging morality solely based on whether the action produces the greatest good for the greatest people––an unrealistic theory that forces individuals to make estimates without any bearing on how close one is from achieving the optimific decision. On the other hand, developed by John Stuart Mill, rule utilitarianism, acknowledges the flaws of act utilitarianism by judging morality based on whether an action aligns with a generally optimific rule. Thus, when applying rule utilitarianism, moral agents must align themselves with the aforementioned optimifc rules. In this paper, the application of rule utilitarianism is most relevant to the desert-island scenario. Within the limits of optimific rules, a donation to the hospital and the installation of a new X-ray could be framed to promote the greatest good for the greatest people by saving hundreds of future lives. In fact, a donation to the jockey club is merely an exclusive part of the community and contradicts the following generally optimific rule: the life of a human carries the greatest significance (at least more than entertainment). In essence, by donating the funds to the jockey club, the moral agent is unable to satisfy the greatest happiness principle, and hence, fails to reach (and help others reach) the ultimate end where existence is “exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments” (Mill 12).

While establishing set rules prevent troubling ethical theories like act utilitarianism from sustaining, the idea of rules can be also applied to argue against the act of donating to a hospital. As discussed in the paragraph before, donating the funds to the hospital will likely lead to the greatest amount of net pleasure but will conflict with several generally optimific rules. For instance, the concept that lying is morally unacceptable or the idea that spending someone else’s money in a manner that contacts with their desires are morally incorrect could be an optimific rule. Thus, some of these generally optimific rules would prevent proponents of rule utilitarianism from donating to the hospital. Furthermore, within the context of the desert-island problem, rule utilitarianism appears to rely on the ability to foresee the future and assess whether one action will have a positive impact on the long-term scale. For instance, how can we confidently conclude that the installation of a new X-ray machine will positively change the lives of people in the future? Can we conclude that the X-ray machine will produce the greater good for the greater people when there is uncertainty regarding the state of the population? Thus, when a moral agent is attempting to determine an outcome in advance, the most they can do is observe the actual series of consequences unfold.

The desert-island dilemma brings attention to the various ways in which deontological and utilitarian ideals can be used to both argue for and against the donation to the jockey club. By applying the elements behind Kant’s categorical imperative, the donation to the hospital is not justified as the act of lying contradicts the universalizability clause and uses the dying man as a mere means to achieve the agent’s desires. Nevertheless, the pillars of rule utilitarianism morally justify the donation to the hospital as the act of prioritizing an individual’s life can be categorized as a generally optimific rule. The same rationale behind establishing rules before justifying actions can be applied to promote donations to the jockey club as acts associated with deception are not generally optimific rules. Thus, although the focus on promoting the greatest good could encourage the moral agent to donate to the hospital, deontological theory justifies the act of donating to the jockey club as the act of deceiving is not morally permissible.