Utilitarianism vs. Kant's Categorical Imperative in Extreme Measures
This paper examines the competing ethical frameworks of Kantian deontology and Millian utilitarianism as dramatized in the 1996 film Extreme Measures. Through the moral conflict between Dr. Guy Luteran and Dr. Lawrence Myrick, the paper explores Kant's categorical imperative — which forbids using individuals merely as means — against the utilitarian goal of producing the greatest good for the greatest number. The paper also considers Mill's critique of Kant and argues that, paradoxically, both ethical frameworks ultimately condemn the film's experimental medical procedures as morally unjustifiable.
- Introduction: Film's ethical conflict between Luteran and Myrick introduced
- Kant's Categorical Imperative and Individual Worth: Kant's objection to using persons as means
- Mill's Utilitarianism and Its Critique of Kant: Mill critiques Kant; utilitarian lens applied to film
- Conclusion: Both Frameworks Condemn the Experiments: Both ethical theories condemn the medical experiments
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It uses a concrete cultural text — the film Extreme Measures — as a vehicle for comparing two major ethical theories, making abstract philosophy tangible and accessible.
- The paper demonstrates genuine critical thinking by showing that both Kantian and utilitarian frameworks, despite their differences, converge in condemning the film's medical experiments.
- It incorporates Mill's own critique of Kant to complicate the binary opposition between the two theories, adding nuance beyond a simple Kant-versus-Mill framing.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models comparative ethical analysis: rather than applying only one framework, it sets two theories in dialogue, acknowledges where they overlap (Mill's critique of Kant), and then synthesizes them to reach a shared conclusion. This technique — finding convergence across competing frameworks — is a sophisticated move in applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the film's central moral conflict and the two positions it embodies. The second section applies Kant's categorical imperative, drawing on the "means vs. ends" distinction. The third section introduces Mill's utilitarianism and his critique of Kant, then turns that framework against the film's procedures. The conclusion synthesizes both perspectives into a unified moral judgment. The essay is compact but logically complete, suitable as a short undergraduate philosophy or ethics response paper.
Introduction
In the film Extreme Measures (1996), the resident Dr. Guy Luteran argues that sacrificing human lives in the short run to achieve a long-term utilitarian goal — prolonging and improving life — is categorically wrong. Guy therefore advocates Kant's categorical imperative against Dr. Lawrence Myrick's utilitarian justification for deploying risky surgical techniques on spinal cord injury patients in order to help future patients recover full function. Kant's imperative stresses adherence to rules that we know, intuitively and rationally, to be morally binding, rather than engaging in moral speculation about outcomes that might yield greater future benefits.
Kant's Categorical Imperative and Individual Worth
The essence of Kant's objection to utilitarian theories is that utilitarianism actually devalues the very individuals it claims to benefit. If utilitarian calculations are permitted to motivate our actions, we allow the welfare and interests of one person to be measured in terms of what use can be made of them. It would then be possible, for instance, to justify sacrificing one individual for the benefit of others whenever the utilitarian calculus promises a net gain. Doing so represents the clearest example of treating someone utterly as a means rather than as an end in themselves (McCormack, 2001).
In the context of Extreme Measures, the injured patients become precisely such "means": their welfare is sacrificed for the supposed greater good of patients in the future. Kantian ethics holds that this treatment is impermissible regardless of the anticipated benefits, because every rational person possesses an inherent dignity that cannot be overridden by consequentialist reasoning.
Conclusion: Both Frameworks Condemn the Experiments
From both moral perspectives — Kant's and Mill's — the actions depicted in Extreme Measures can be viewed as wrong: categorically forbidden under deontology, and unjustifiable even under utilitarian reasoning. Kant forbids the use of persons merely as means under any circumstances. Mill, while open in principle to trading present harm for future benefit, requires that the benefit be substantial, probable, and proportionate — conditions that covert, non-consensual human experimentation cannot meet. Thus, the film's central ethical conflict ultimately demonstrates that both major traditions in Western moral philosophy converge in their condemnation of sacrificing identifiable individuals for speculative collective gain.
Works Cited
Extreme Measures. 1996.
IEP. "John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2001.
McCormack. "Kant's Criticisms of Utilitarianism." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2001.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.