For this assignment I have selected scenario #2. According to the utilitarian ethical theory, it would appear that the correct choice to be made in this situation is to lie to Uncle Bob and not tell the truth about the gambling debt, but instead state that the money is needed for an emergency circumstance. This is because utilitarian theory is fundamentally concerned with consequences of an action. (Stewart & Blocker, 2012) This means, firstly, that in an ethical dilemma, the ends, or the goal of the action, is more important than the means.

What we can do can only be evaluated in terms of thinking of the goal, or in other words, “we can have a fairly good idea what the consequences of our actions are.” (Hamilton, 2003, p. 77) Secondly, the particular goal of the utilitarian theory is commonly measured in terms of happiness. (Stewart & Blocker, 2012) The option of lying to Uncle Bob satisfies both of these criteria of utilitarian theory. Namely, for the first point, there is nothing inherently ethically wrong with lying in this case, because the lie itself is not the goal, but rather a means. Secondly, the goal itself is justifiable for utilitarian theory. On the one hand, I will be clearly happy because I will not have my knees destroyed by the bookie. On the other hand, as the scenario states, Uncle Bob himself is both financially affluent and is generally ignorant and therefore unharmed of instances when people lie to him. The maximum goal of happiness is thus achieved on both counts: I am not physically injured by the bookie and Uncle Bob is unaware of any lie and has no financial damage as a result of the situation. Uncle Bob is not any less happy because of the means of lying: in fact, he may even be more happy, because he has helped me in a desperate situation.

For the Kantian perspective, however, the exact opposite course of ethical action would be taken. This is because Kant proposes an ethical system based on what he terms the categorical imperative. Kant’s position basically states that there exists a moral law that we should follow, regardless of the consequences. (Stewart & Blocker, 2012) This is what makes an ethical act truly ethical: we do not do it for some reward or to avoid punishment, but instead because the act itself is good and moral. Accordingly, if there is such a thing as an ethical act, it will be ethical in any situation, because the precise act itself is considered to be moral and not its consequences. (Paton, 1971, p.191)

In this case, it would thus be entirely ethical to tell the truth to Uncle Bob about what has happened. If I lie to Bob, I am doing so to achieve some reward, in this case, not being injured by the bookie. I am not thinking of the act itself, namely, of telling Uncle Bob a lie. Furthermore, when I see the scenario from the perspective of the categorical imperative, I understand that lying in some situations is not ethical. To lie about murdering someone is clearly not an ethical act. Therefore, lying is sometimes ethical perhaps, and sometimes clearly unethical. This is not sufficient for Kant: the ethical act must always be what is morally good. For this reason, I must tell Uncle Bob the truth about the reason why I need money from him.

It would seem that the utilitarian position is closer to an ethically correct position. This is not because utilitarianism is always correct, but rather that I think Kant’s theory does not take into account the different ethical dilemmas we constantly face. For example, if lying is bad, since lying cannot be always justified, imagine the scenario that the Waffen SS comes to my door and asks if I am hiding any Jews in my home. According to Kant’s treatment of ethics, I could not lie in this scenario, simply because lying itself is not an ethical act, there are times when lying is wrong. This is clearly a tenuous position, since it misses the specific contexts of certain ethical problems. It is these contexts which determine how we should act.

I believe that utilitarianism better captures this contextual aspect of ethics, because it looks at how we act in terms of goals. Lying in the case I mentioned is not unethical, but rather entirely ethical, because I am trying to save the lives of other human beings, the goal of maximizing the happiness of those involved. Thus, utilitarianism is a better ethical stance from my point of view because it takes into account the details and the contexts of particular ethical dilemmas.