Analysis Of The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

Many moral theories have been proposed to understanding our obligations and responding to the perceived injustices present in the world such as world hunger and world poverty, two of the most prominent of these theories are utilitarianism, and human rights. In her essay ‘Rights, Obligations, and World Hunger’, Onora O’Neill critically examines these theories and highlights their inadequacy towards understanding our obligations towards alleviating world poverty, then goes on to propose a third alternative theory to the aforementioned theories, which she believes is better suited. The theory she proposes is that of the Kantian ethical theory developed by 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant. This theory is indeed the best suited to understanding our obligations to alleviating world poverty. Before expounding on the Kantian theory that O’Neill proposes, and why it is the optimal approach for understanding our obligations to those suffering from world poverty, I will very briefly summarise the other two moral theories, and explain why O’Neill is correct in her assessment that they are inadequate to dealing with the problem at hand.

Has it ever happened to you that you go to the theater with friends, and in the middle of the movie someone exclaims, “That was not in the book!”? When a book comes to life on film, the expectations double: not only must film makers satisfy the demands of the author and other people involved in the creative process of the text, but also they have to please an already established fan base that expects for the movie to do justice to its written counterpart. It is definitely a challenge to meet those expectations, but if presented with an exceptional literary work, the job of film makers gets easier. In this case, such a piece comes in the form of Hugo Award winner “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” a short story written by Ursula K. Le

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory created by philosopher Jeremy Bentham who claims actions that are morally right are ones that will lead to the least amount of pain for the most people and instead promote pleasure for the majority. This theory sounds reasonable, expect what if an entire city is a utopia filled with happiness and not worries at all, but everyone’s happiness relies on the pain and suffering of one small, innocent child? Would it be morally acceptable to allow the child to suffer for the benefit of everyone in the city? Ursula K. Le Guin beings these questions to light her short story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. Le Guin’s story is about an extravagant city named Omelas. The story has three essential sections to it explained by a central narrator; the first is describing the city’s summer festival. Readers get a glance at how happy and perfect the town and the townspeople are. The city is described as not having any war, sickness, or weapons, only happiness and contentedness, though the narrator chooses to leave some aspects up to the reader's interpretation. Once readers get a thorough description of the city and its people, the narrator announces there is another aspect that must be explained and moves to the second section of the story. This section is all about a small, feeble child locked in a basement of a building in the town. This child is abused and left to suffer and later it is announced that the child's suffering is the only way Omelas

Euthyphro’s dilemma has major consequences on the Divine Command Theory of Morality (DCTM). In its essence, the DCTM is the idea that morality

Ursula Le Guin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” is a plotless, philosophical fiction. Written in 1973, Le Guin tells the dark narrative of a fictional town which lives in peace with itself. The seemingly happy town houses a dark secret, one so dark that citizen’s of the town leave to escape it. Ursula Le Guin does this by using authorial intrusion, withholding information, and encouraging her readers to think.

This essay examines the relationship between the Divine Command Theory of morality, and moral questions posed by Socrates in the Euthyphro Dilemma. The Euthyphro Dilemma is often used to challenge the Divine Command Theory’s position on moral acts. However, this essay will show that challenge is without basis, as acts of morality are neither inherently good nor are they good because of some independent action initiated by God. Rather, moral acts are good because they emanate from the nature of God as a reflection of who He is.

The difference between “right” and “wrong” is rarely plainly clear. Dozens of wars have been fought over the centuries that have been driven by differing moral beliefs. These rights, and actions motivated by them, are justified by a society’s collective morals, which begs the question- who decides what the collective belief of an entire society is? Some seem relatively clear—the right to life, the right to work—while others are significantly cloudier— how does my right to own property and freely express myself affect my neighbor’s right to have a safe, peaceful place to live? As the layers of these moral problems are uncovered we delve deeper into what rights are, and just as importantly, who has them and why? Philosopher Immanuel Kant’s

It becomes evident to the reader that Kant draws a line between the freedom to express one's opinions as opposed to the freedom to act according to such opinions. To Kant, it is essential that individuals obey the established laws of their society because doing otherwise undermines all authority of such a legal structure. A disobedient society cannot achieve enlightenment. (150)

From Wood’s perspective, all lives are equal and if one life is put above another this results in unethical practice. Kantian ethics is about having “rational conception of ourselves which commits us to autonomy, human equality, and cosmopolitan community” (Wood, 177). Therefore, if our society would actually follow Kantian ethics or tried to use its concepts in our actions, humans could potentially live in a more ethical society. A society that would no longer undermine the standard of living of indigenous people and take them into consideration in any actions or plans they make. By doing this, a cosmopolitan society can be reached, where the lives of the indigenous beings are valued, while simultaneously committing us to autonomy, which frees us from the restraints of money. By not being so dependent on oil for income, Ecuador is being freed from having to destroy its land and the affecting the beings that live there. Only with this being said, would we be able to live in an ethical society.

The Omelas’ behavior is considered moral through utilitarianism. In the textbook, utilitarianism is defined as “the sum of individual pleasures and pains. It is not my pleasures or pains that matter-but the cumulative happiness of a number of people” (MacKinnon 93). Under this, it is just for the Omelas to make one child suffer to maintain the happiness of the society. Utilitarianism is better explained and supported by the trolley problem, a hypothetical case where you have the power to allow a trolley to kill five workers or one worker by pulling a switch. According to utilitarianism, “you would not only be permitted, but required to pull the switch, which would result in one death and five lives saved” (MacKinnon 100). By losing one life

Emmanuel Kant was an influential philosopher and strong proponent of the modern era. Besides his large contribution to epistemology and metaphysics, his work in ethics was just as substantial. Kant’s ethics came to propose an objective morality, where moral judgments is not only true according to a person 's subjective view. He believed the moral worth of an action is not determined by its consequence but the motive behind it. Through Kant’s ethics, he demonstrates this duty through his unconditional moral principle, the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative expresses that morality is not about the outcome (good or bad), but the right action regardless of the outcome. It is the responsibility to do one 's duty for its own sake and not in pursuit of one’s own desire.

For centuries people have contemplated what makes actions morally right or wrong. They have searched for some fundamental moral principle that can be applied to every moral dilemma. From these efforts various theories of morality have been developed, all of which have their own successes and shortcomings. Many religious believers look to the Divine Command Theory for moral guidance. This theory states that if God commands you to do act A, then it is your moral obligation to do A. An issue with the divine command theory is that it suggests that God could have chosen to make killing morally right and helping other wrong which is against our deep moral convictions. Another theory is Act Consequentialism, which states that you ought to act in a way that produces the most optimific (greatest balance of benefits to drawbacks) results. By Act Consequentialism the method to making the right moral decision is to determine what is intrinsically good/bad and what the options for acting are, then choose the act that yields the best consequences. There are several situations in which the optimific act is unjust (i.e. harvesting ones organs to save multiple people). In trying to correct this issue Rule Consequentialism was developed, which states that an action is morally right if and only if the actions accords with optimific rules. This theory often leads to favoring rules over the good or faces similar issues as Act Consequentialism. The Kantian perspective helps to deal with the

Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative contrasts greatly to the principle of utilitarianism. Kant’s categorical imperative states you are intended to act a certain way because it is your duty to do so. Kant principle also states, to correctly do ones duty, one must make decisions while excluding the influences of the actions’ effects, and our own inclinations, therefore, one must think in a deontological thinker, to a certain extent. Kant also states in order to make a moral decision, one must have a choice, and so, if one cannot make a choice, and then they do not need to make a morally correct decision. Kant’s theory is fair and treats all individuals equally, promoting an equal society, as no one person can be valued above the rest.

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)