Jim found himself in a dilemma. Arriving in a South American town, he comes across a captain and his army about to murder twenty Indians in order to dissuade other Indians from protesting the government. Jim is treated as a guest of the town and is offered the privilege of shooting one of the Indians, at which point the captain will let the other nineteen go. However, refusing this offer will mean that the captain will continue as planned and kill all twenty. is generally distinct from ethics, because ethics offers the right or wrong of an act, rather than the result of the action. In this essay, we will explore the differences between consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the dilemma that Bernard Williams and JJC Smart put forward in their original analogy of "Jim and the Indians" in their book, Utilitarianism: Pros and Cons (JJC Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.). The deontological view would be that we should act according to a set of rules, obligations or duties that we must fulfill, without worrying about the consequences. Kant, a popular deontological philosopher of the 19th century, wrote in his “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals”: ​​“Nothing in the world – and even beyond the world – can be conceived which can be called good with reservation, except the good will (Kant 61). ).This “good will” is the basis of an ethical argument. Courage, perseverance, and patience are all qualities of character, while qualities of mind can include intelligence and judgment. All are desirable and good; however, these qualities can become bad and harmful if there is no good will. The belief here is that there is goodwill in everyone and that this goodwill can p...... middle of paper ......ir cause of freedom and equality, thus bringing greater happiness. This could be seen as bringing a greater amount of happiness to a greater number of people over a longer period of time, rather than bringing unhappiness to a small minority over a shorter period of time. In conclusion, we can say that consequentialism is wrong in that the boundaries of wrongdoing, to bring about a better good, are unlimited. We can conclude that evil actions can be interpreted as bringing greater happiness for what the perpetrator of evil strives to be for the better good of the people. Essentially, we have seen that the deontological conception of good will in individual action can lead to moral justification. The captain and his men must make the moral decision whether to kill or not. If they kill the Indians, their actions should be left to higher authority..