The Sheriff’s Dilemma
How to structure your answer
The Sheriff’s Dilemma
It is 1873 in the Wild West of
America. The sheriff of a small
remote town has arrested a man
suspected of murdering a child. A
mob gathers outside the
courthouse threatening to break in
and lynch the suspect. If they
don’t get their way the sheriff, his
deputies and many other people
will be killed. The sheriff is faced
with 2 choices, he ponders those
choices as the first shot is fired.
How might a Kantian respond to the
sheriff’s situation? What advice
might they offer? 18KU
Introduction







Start off by saying a little
about the philosopher
associated with the theory
When and where he lived
His literary work, the primary
source of his theory
What he did for a living
What was said about him by
others: in Kant’s case “you
could set your watch by him”
A sentence or two on the sort
of theory that it is
It should all be brief
Example of Introduction.

Immanuel Kant was an 18th century philosopher from the city of
Konigsberg, now part of Germany. He was a professor at the
university of Konigsberg where he taught philosophy, among other
subjects. He was an influential figure of the Enlightenment period.
His major works include The Critique of Pure Reason and The
Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals. It was said that one
could set their watch by him, he took his walk at the same time of
day rain, hail or shine. Kant set out his moral theory in The
Groundwork; it is a deontological theory, ie, based on rules and
principles of action. He claimed that there are certain moral
obligations which are categorical and binding and based on duty. His
theory is sometimes referred to as Duty Ethics.
Setting out Kant’s Theory










Now go on and explain the theory in more detail
Kant distinguishes between hypothetical and categorical imperatives
Hypothetical imperatives are dependent on ends
If you want to achieve x then you must do y
Categorical imperatives are ends in themselves
The second formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative states that we
must never use someone as a means to an end but as an end in themselves
Categorical imperatives are moral imperatives and are not dependent on
anything else
If the sheriff were to hand the suspect over to the mob he would be using
him as a means to an end
This would be giving the suspect instrumental value; using him to stop the
mob from rioting and preventing deaths
Consequences are irrelevant in Kant’s moral decision making as they are out
with our control and unpredictable
What should I do?





A Kantian would not ask the
sheriff to consider the
consequences in order to make a
decision
The decision must be based on
duty, when one is acting in
accordance with duty one is
following the moral law
Acting from duty shows the good
will in action
The sheriff has a duty and the
categorical imperative helps one
to identify what that duty is
He must consider his options; give
the suspect to the mob or protect
him from the mob?
Duty and Maxims








The sheriff has a duty to protect prisoners and to uphold justice
Kant believed that humans were unique because of their ability to
reason
Reason dictates that everyone will be able to work out what to do in
any situation
The first formulation of the CI states that one must be willing to act
only on a maxim that he would wish to become a universal law
Explain maxims
The sheriff may act on the maxim ‘always protect suspects from
rioting bloodthirsty mobs’ or ‘always maintain the law’
This would have to be able to be universalised without contradicting
itself
Can these maxims be universalised? YES!
Reason






The categorical imperative applies
reason to moral decision making
By universalising a maxim we are
applying it to everyone in the
same situation
Reason dictates that the right
thing to do is to protect the
suspect
If the sheriff were to hand him
over he would not be using reason
The maxim he would be acting on
could not be universalised and
would therefore fail the test of the
categorical imperative
Justice would fall apart and
suspects would have no protection
in future
Kingdom of Ends





The 3rd formulation of the
Categorical adds a community
aspect to Kant’s theory
One must be willing to become a
lawmaking member of a kingdom
of ends
This upholds the dignity and value
of everyone
The maxims we act on must treat
everyone as an end in themselves
and maintain their intrinsic worth
No one would logically wish to
exist in a society where the rules
they lived by were harmful to all
including oneself
Conclusion
Conclusion should be short
 It should sum up the main points of your argument
 Do not add any new information at this stage
 Bring together all the points that you have already made
 An example of a conclusion could be:
“So in conclusion, the Kantian’s advice to the sheriff would be to act on
a maxim that he would wish to be applicable to himself, this would
mean that he must treat the prisoner (suspect) as an end in himself
because this is how the sheriff would wish to be treated. This would
mean that the sheriff would have to deny the mob the suspect and
protect him as he may be innocent, even although many people will
be killed. If the sheriff did not do this and his action was
universalised, there would be no justice or protection for those
suspected of a crime. For a Kantian this is the right thing to do”.
However, the sheriff does have a real dilemma, how can he protect the
suspect without killing some of the mob?
