Philippa Foot in his publication Killing and Letting Die, formulated a thought experiment that incorporated two situations. Despite the two different scenarios yielding the exact same consequences in the end, the different methods employed in arriving at those similar outcomes raise questions revolving morally permissibility. In the first scenario which we shall call Rescue I, a person is in a situation where he must drive swiftly in order to rescue five individuals from an imminent ocean tide. Along the way the driver learns of a single person also requires immediate assistance from another tragedy. However, if the driver chooses to rescue this one individual first he will not be able to rescue the other five. Therefore, the driver decides to drive on to save the five and lets the single individual die. In the second scenario, Rescue II, a person is in a situation where he must also drive sw
iftly in order to rescue five individuals from an imminent ocean tide. However, this time round the road is narrow and blocked with an injured man and the driver is incapable of using another road. However, if the driver chooses to rescue this one individual first he will not be able to rescue the other five. Therefore, the driver decides to drive over the injured man and proceeds to save the five people. If one stops, they can save him, but they will not reach the other five in time and they will die. The two situations in this thought experiment eventually produce the exact same outcomes where five people are rescued and one person ends dying. In this essay, I will analyze the works of two great philosophers, John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant under Utilitarianism and Categorical Imperatives respectively in order to assess the moral acceptability of the two scenarios, Rescue I and Rescue II.