Similarities Between Kant And Antigone

When presented with situations whose outcomes reflect that of a Catch-22, exactly how does one know which repercussion is more favorable, or the least detrimental? In the circumstance of the trolley, mothers, and children, both decisions can be determined “the morally correct decision” depending on the philosophies behind them. In this paper, I will compare Mill’s, Kant’s and Antigone’s perspectives in order to determine their position in the trolley situation. Let’s begin with Mill. As a utilitarian, Mill argues that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness… By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain”. In other words, which ever action provides the larger amount of happiness (or the least amount of pain) is always the better choice in any situation. In the case of the trolley, we will use the latter half of the definition of happiness. Now, as a true utilitarian, the obvious choice would be to save the five mothers and their children, and let my mother be killed, for this outcome produces less pain than the other choice. Utilitarianism would require that we part with our personal relationships as to remain impartial, for in this philosophy, one life is worth the same as
Antigone, like Kant, is governed by a philosophy of duty, but one that is very different from Kant’s. Antigone’s duty is to the gods. Unlike Kant who follows a sort of subjective moral law, Antigone’s moral law is far less arbitrary. She is obligated to uphold her family duties regardless of the circumstances. I believe this is what separates Antigone from both Mill and Kant, as well as Smith. Her actions are independent of circumstances. There are no conditions to be met. The details of the scenario do not hinder her from performing her duty as she would under normal conditions. This strong sense of moral obligation is why Antigone would advise me to save my mother, because your one duty is to your family,