The One's Who Walk Away From Omelas

To be happy, one must take the happiness of others. That’s just how it works, right? In most cases, joy is brought by other’s despair. Author Ursula K. Le Guin took this into a more literal level, in her short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Le Guin tells a story about a town of fueling all of it’s happiness through one child who must suffer.

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

According to Mill, pleasure should depend on quantity and not quality. For instance, the people who had any feeling of moral obligation are the most desirable pleasure, because those people do not think pleasure as right or wrong (38). “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” What Mill is trying to say in this assertion is that human beings should not sacrifice their pleasure for others. Also, Mill states that men lose their aspiration when they are too focused on inferior pleasure. If a human does not have no pleasure or feel no pain, then he would not know how to love or desire virtue. When there is pleasure, there will be painful as

Contemporary American culture is represented in “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin. Omelas is a Utopian city which inhabits citizens who are pleased and content with their lives. It is described as happy, full of freedom and joy. However, this privilege of life comes at a price. In order for the people of Omelas to live this way, a child must be kept stowed away in a dark closet. Miserable and left to wallow in it's own filth, the citizens are told or even bear witness to the child's agony. After being exposed to the child, most of the citizens carry on with their lives, employing the cause of the child's unfortunate place in their society. Nobody knows where they go, but some do silently walk

Omelas vast amazingness is all consequent from the child’s suffering. ,Nicolli Makaveli, a Utalitarian devotee in some of his works makes a statement that aids in understanding utility, “For Machiavelli the ends justify the means, but the ends themselves are not simply power for power’s sake” (Erb), the end , is the Utopia, but at the cost of the child’s suffering, the means. A true fundamental utilitarian would justify the city from Omelas. It is accepted because since a vast amount of people benefit from the child’s unfair punishment, the benefit is greater than the cost. Happiness at such a great cost creates a relative happiness, in that the happiness is not genuine. Yes, the people of Omelas feel subjectively happy feelings, but these feelings have to be justified by the cost of the child. One of the most pungent statements the author uses to show the restrictions of the people of Omelas happiness are, “Theirs is no vapid, irresponsible happiness.” (Guin)There is not one situation of good in Omelas that does not stem from the suffering of the child. Therefore happiness is not truly happiness it becomes realize the cost of their happiness some people cannot sell their morality for it. She even states that it is quite incredible, that someone can leave Omelas because the price was too high. Alluding

Thesis: Ursula Leguin 's story, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, fails to successfully defeat utilitarianism because the scenario proposed has little relevance to any real world situation, and has the counterproductive effect of exposing moral weaknesses within our own society.

“There can be no final truth in ethics any more than in physics, until the last man has had his experience and his say” (James). This quote from William James uproots the concept of ethics in society entirely. James begins to explain that every man will have his own experience in life, which will end up leading to different opinions. These different ideas can be influenced by “the psychological question, the metaphysical question, and the casuistic question. The psychological question asks after the historical origin of our moral ideas and judgments” (James).

In a Utilitarian world the lives and needs of the many in the society are put over the needs of the few. This idea is seen in a lot of popular dystopian movies like the hunger games, divergent, and harry potter. This is a common theme in literature and movies because it is a safe way to picture the crazy “what ifs” in life. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas ” by Ursula Le Guin, all of humanity will be happy and safe if one child is kept neglected and abused for all life. Obviously, in an ideal world the rights of every single person would be important but when not only your happiness is on the line but your children, family, friends, and the rest of the society’s happiness and livelihood is on the line I believe that most people would trade the happiness of one for the happiness of all society. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" the true purpose of the article is to debate the ethical ideology between a utilitarian vs. egalitarian society. It is uncomfortable to discuss because there is no obvious answer, no matter what there will be negative consequences. Also, it's a real life question, it’s not something purely fictional, its something a debate that occurs every day and effects the lives of many. Societies are built on the foundation that every person is equal, and in theory this is a wonderful idea.When we live in a world of over 7 billion people, the question has to be asked “if the good of the society is more important than the suffering of one person”. Take

Mill writes of utilitarianism in the eponymous work Utilitarianism. According to his work utilitarianism is a means of deciding the moral value of actions. Mill’s theory takes a consequentialist view of actions, saying that the moral worth of an action is decided by the outcome, or consequence. This decision of moral worth is determined by whether the outcome maximizes happiness and minimizes the reverse of happiness. Mill writes that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain according to Mill, and the action must be considered for the outcome it brings to the most people. This happiness, or pleasure and lack of pain,

One might say, however, that some things are desired as a means to happiness. These, he says, are ‘ingredients’ to happiness. Happiness consists of these ‘ingredients’; they are a part of the happiness. Therefore, Mill claims that whatever is desired for its own sake is part of what happiness is, and each individual person desires different things to make them happy. They are means to the end of happiness. It is not possible, according to Mill, to desire something that will not provide some form of pleasure. Pleasure is happiness, and people only desire happiness, and happiness is therefore the only good.

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.

Mill disagreed that "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied," meaning, human dissatisfaction is superior to animal satisfaction, or more clearer stated as "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". This means the fool would simply be of a different view because he did not know both sides of the question. This statement means that Mill has rejected the identification of the concept "happiness" and replaced it with "pleasure and the absence of pain" and rejected the concept "unhappiness" and replaced it with "pain and the absence of pleasure." Even though his point was based on the maximization of happiness, he showed the differences between pleasures that are higher and lower in quality.

Utilitarianism can be generally defined as a way of thinking where one chooses an action based on the amount of happiness that it would produce. In the book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, the authors state “Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism,” and that “John Stuart Mill explained it as ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’” (MacKinnon 95). This means that utilitarianism focuses on result of an action based on happiness and that decisions can be taken made by looking at possible outcomes of that decision. What Mill stated would be defined as “ the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.”( MacKinnon, 95). This principle is one in which could be

In John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism, he states, “the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Arthur & Scalet, 2009, p. 66). He speaks of the power of sacrificing the greatest good for the good of others. What this infers is the idea of maximizing utility and producing the greatest good once all things are considered. He says you consider all involved and any action is okay as long as its benefits outweigh the cost. I believe this to be a weakness of the theory because it is possible to do