Should Jim shot the Indians?
The decisions that are about to be made in the most critical situations are the hardest ones. Quite often they question the sense of morality and the way people perceive this world. The essay “Jim and Indians” is an example of an ethic dilemma, in which a traveler that had become a victim of circumstances should make a hard choice, involving murders . These murders are all potential, as well as the people who will be in charge of them. It could be Jim himself or the military men that keep the control over the village. In the first case, from 20 potential deaths, there will be only one, in the second – all the 20 people will be dead. The text questions the reader about should he shot the Indian or refuse the offer to make a special occasion. In the case of Jim, he was facing the dilemma that could save peoples’ lives by putting a murder of one of them on his hands.
Considering the principles of utilitarianism, the right decision for Jim would be to accept the offer and to shot one Indian. In this case, the highest quantity of people will get the highest level of satisfaction. Not only 19 of Indians will be saved, but also their relatives and other citizens will be glad. Moreover, the captain and other military people would be pleased by Jim’s gesture that will be a sign of the respect to them. All the action will turn into a special occasion and will end peacefully with a loss of only of one of Indians. From the point of view of utilitarianism, this killing will rather be a mercy, and can be considered as a morally permissive action as the result will bring the positive effect as a saving of other people’s lives.
On the other hand, the following questions are rising: who will be that person that should be killed and how will this principle work for Jim as a person who need to shot? The first question can also be regarded from the utilitarianism point of view as in this situation, Jim should kill the Indian, whose death will bring the less suffer to others. However, how such parameters could be measured in the situation of emergency and limited time? In any circumstances, this death will be on Jim’s hands and here is the main problem, because any murder will bring him unhappiness. The consequence of the action will be negative, so it means that it should not be done, but such assumption will result in the killing of all the Indians. Regarding the overall quantity of the people involved in the situation, Jim’s interests, according to utilitarianism could and should be neglected as well the life of one of Indians.
The Kant’s philosophy will oppose the previously described decision. Here, the main point would be concentrated rather around Jim’s personal choice and his feelings. Instead of obeying social pressure and conducting the action that is originally non-moral, the choice will completely be the responsibility of the main character.
If we take a look at the first formulation of the categorical imperative, we will first of all stop considering the surrounding conditions. For example, the begging of the men near the wall and the other people of the village, who were asking Jim to agree to the proposition , should not be taken as the call for action. First of all, because they ask to kill the person, second – because it will limit Jim with his actions. In this case, we Jim should rely mostly on his personal experience and principles that he believes are true and right. Logically to assume, that he will regard the murder as a maximum, that cannot be universalized because in normal life conditions such situation will not be morally approved. Basically, there is no need to kill anybody from the very beginning, so the agreement to do this will automatically turn this action into a permissive practice. If Jim will refuse to kill the Indian, his act will become the maximum; however, unfortunately, there are no guarantees that this maximum will be as well accepted by the military men so they can release the prisoners.
Nevertheless, the actions of military people will not be the responsibility of Jim anymore. It is probably better for Jim to let everything happen as it is already agreed in this village according to their customs and traditions. For example, the riots against the government are the practices that require a punishment. It is possible, that for the commander that proposed Jim to shot, the killing of these people is a maximum that is his certain priority.
According to the second formulation, Jim should have a right to choose without any pressures from the surrounding as the right way to behave is to make a decision based on his free will. The village habitants seem to use Jim as a method to save their people, whereas they do nothing in order to stop the case at all. This looks unfair from the perspective of the second formulation according to Jim as a person. The same thing can be said about the soldier that offers Jim an honor to kill the Indian. If we look closer, it can be understood that such behavior also means the usage of the person in order to achieve someone’s goal. Moreover, this goal will contain a murder in its basics. Somehow, by the wicked rules that are made by the government of that town in South America, the commander is trying to fulfill his duty with the help of Jim and mask it under the good gesture because it will give freedom to other people.
All in all, the responsibility about the choice is on Jim. Depending on the different philosophical perspectives and his personal principles, any of his decision can be interpreted both as a morally permissive action or not. In my opinion, the rational action will be the one that would be based on saving other people, but based on the personal choice of the character. One of the main problems here is that in any case there will be a murder, but the quantity of them can be reduced. Sometimes, such decisions seem to be illogical or not comprehensible, but the circumstances are the factors that could be decisive here. No matter how hard it is, the decision should be made in order to save as many people as it is possible.
Reference
Williams, B. (1973). Jim and the Indians . A Critique of Utilitarism .
