A Kantian and Utilitarian Analysis of Sacrifice for “Some Greater Good”

Whether it can be morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person for some greater good is a question that can be dissected in many ways before getting to the central issue itself. What counts as “sacrificing”, who or whom makes up the “greater good,” how do we decide “innocence,” and how do we even begin with quantifying the metric that will allow us to judge what makes a greater good can all be discussed on their own. However, the issue at hand will be analyzed from several perspectives with baseline assumptions outlined for each example to clarify the questions put forth in the opening paragraph. Consequently, it can be argued that despite the sacrifice of innocent human life being a topic where the Kantian ethic framework might lead us to conclude against it in many aspects, the Utilitarian framework and the examples we can argue for it are more in favor of the claim of the moral acceptability of the central question.

Throughout philosophical history, many thinkers have argued for their own claims of morality and ethics. They did so both to understand the world around them and to reflect upon their own interpretations of what truly is “right” and “wrong”. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates argued that morality is conjoined with obtaining knowledge and that immoral acts are a consequence of ignorance—claiming that a person who is wise and knowledgeable can’t act immorally and against the notions of virtue. Other philosophers emphasized more on creating frameworks in which morality could be assessed. In trying to answer the central question, two schools of thought—deontology and teleology—will be critical to both understanding and assessing morality. The first moral perspective of the essay, deontology, can be summarized as the moral framework primarily postulated by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in which morality is mainly concerned with the actions that individuals make. Morality is viewed through a “duty-based” paradigm in which the actions of the individuals themselves take precedence over the outcome of their actions. On the other side of the moral spectrum, we find the teleological or outcome/results-based paradigm. This paradigm helps create the Utilitarian moral framework mainly argued for by English thinker and political economist John Stuart Mill. In Mill’s writings, the outcomes that are yielded from individual action are central to assessing morality. Ergo, a person who has acted in an immoral way as categorized by Kantian ethics may be considered to have acted morally by Utilitarians depending on the outcome of said actions.

The issue of innocent human sacrifice is a brilliant topic to be discussed both from the Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives as it implies one of the most important conundrums of philosophy: the intentional killing of another. Although in the succeeding paragraphs, the topic of “sacrifice” will be considered from perspectives that do not entail ‘intentional killing,’ for this section its colloquial meaning of killing a person in order to attain some other common, greater “good” will be assumed. To assess the concept of killing (or any other action as a matter of fact) from a Kantian perspective, there are 2 questions put forth:

1. Can the maxim of “killing being good” become universally acceptable?
2. Would you want to live in a society in which the maxim of “killing being good” is universally acceptable?

Kant argues that if we fail to answer positively for both questions as individuals, then we shouldn’t act upon them. Thus, Kant would argue that in a scenario where we consider the act of sacrificing an innocent person as killing, no matter the outcomes that may be attained, whether that be a greater good such as world peace or the solution to global hunger, that action can’t be pursued. Per contra, Mill’s Utilitarian framework would argue the contrary. Mill assesses the morality of an action based on the “utility” obtained from the conduction of that action. He argues that no matter the action (i.e. means) itself, if it results in a net positive outcome (i.e. ends) for the action-taker and/or the society at large, it is morally permissible. Hence, killing an innocent individual for the “greater good” can be morally acceptable as the “greater good” implies a net positive utility for society at large.

Sacrifice as it means to kill someone can be perfectly illustrated for the scope of this paper with the example of ancient human sacrifice for the gods. Many different ancient peoples sacrificed innocent people for reasons ranging from beliefs that they angered them and thus natural disasters occurred, or simply for the belief that doing so would yield them desired amenities like rain for their crops. In contemporary society where science and reason guide our understanding of the world, ancient practices such as human sacrifice are completely unacceptable and unjustifiable. However, both the Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives can serve as great ways of understanding ancient human sacrifice. The answer of the Kantian camp to the question of human sacrifice ‘to please the gods’ would be outright simple: no, it is immoral. By reason alone, the 2 central questions of whether this notion can become universal moral law and whether should it become universal moral law fail as has been outlined through the Kantian perspective on killing. The utilitarian framework, however, may present a unique answer to the question: if the act of human sacrifice is done with the aim of attaining social cohesion and possibly instilling morale, then it can become morally acceptable. Furthermore, if the act of innocent human sacrifice is conducted in a society where the concept of god and ‘pleasing the gods’ is a central building block, the act might be justifiable. As societies throughout history practiced many traditions and acts that we may find bizarre and unacceptable in contemporary society, Kantian and Utilitarian analysis might help us have a better understanding of their thought systems.

The most central and final argument for innocent human sacrifice is based on the description of sacrifice in a more indirect, non-killing understanding. Humans have constantly worked towards development and innovation from their earliest days. We went from hunting and gathering our food to mass producing it in giant factories. It can simply be observed that humans are fixated on innovation, development, and utility maximization. Additionally, it is undeniable that this innovation and development is, in part, based on taking risks and even sacrificing oneself for development. The caveman who went out to venture into the woods with wild animals, or the brave explorers who wandered off to the open seas to find new and prosperous land, all, in part, sacrificed themselves—for a greater good. This sacrifice, although at all times might not entail outright death or being killed, is a sacrifice regardless. We can use the Age of Discovery as our main example of ethical analysis. It took many brave sailors in Europe to wander off into the open oceans until they came across prosperous lands and were able to come back with good news. Many died while trying or were never heard of again. Whether they did it for personal gain or societal development can be argued, but it is a sacrifice of their safety and certainty of a stable life on land at the very least. Kantian ethics may argue against either one or both of its central questions when it comes to the act of sacrificing oneself for discovery and innovation. They may find it immoral for people to be encouraged to venture out and risk their lives as doing so might entail them being killed—an act that was established to be immoral according to the Kantian framework. However, ‘if no one is encouraged to venture out and sacrifice themselves for the betterment of society, then as humans what else shall we do?’ might say a Utilitarian. Sacrifice does not always have to entail direct killing as in the example given. Nonetheless, some acts of sacrifice or encouraged sacrifice such as the aforementioned are necessary for human development. If there are no brave cavemen to venture out for food or no brave sailors to go discover the new world, then what are we here to do as humans?

Both the Kantian and Utilitarian frameworks offer exquisite and thought-provoking interpretations to daily and societal moral questions. Kantianism is a great way in assessing situations we want everyone to be held accountable for no matter what such as laws and punishments. They serve as an equalizer for every citizen in front of the eyes of the court. However, the Utilitarian framework is equally, if not more important for the interpretation of said laws to unique circumstances. If we were to accept all laws in their basic interpretations as written, then we wouldn’t have to have long and arduous court proceedings and could be over with delivering justice solely by looking at the actions conducted and without, at all, considering the outcomes. In the end, the question of whether it can be morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent someone for a greater good can be debated from many different perspectives. Regardless, when we apply the Utilitarian framework and take into consideration our everlasting desire for societal improvement and development, we can argue that there are indeed cases where it is morally acceptable to do so.