Through the course of this paper the author will try to demonstrate, depicting both sides of the argument, the reasons in which a follower of John Stuart Mill 's "Utilitarianism" would disagree with the events taking place in Ursula Le Guin 's "The One 's Who Walk Away from Omelas."
"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" (Mill 55). This is how Mill first presents the idea of Utilitarianism. If it promotes happiness it is right, if it promotes the reverse of happiness, then it is wrong. If one were to simply take this statement, without further …show more content…
The teachings of Mill on page 57 state that a highly endowed being would always find that any happiness he searched for would inevitably be imperfect. Yet this being has the ability to learn to bear its imperfections. If this were true, the people of Omelas would be able to bear the imperfections of the "normal" world they once lived in and, therefore, have no need to pursue the "perfect" happiness and pleasures. This thought is also backed
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.
According to Mill’s arguments and views on happiness, it is convincing that happiness is good: that each individual’s happiness is a beneficial thing to them. As well as, the proof of happiness is when people actually desire it and feel like they have never desired anything else (44). Mill defines happiness as intended pleasure and freedom from pain. Utilitarianism and happiness are linked to each other because the morality of a human action should do the right thing that is useful or beneficial to the society, which happiness is involved. For example, a person sees an elderly struggling carrying the grocery bags, and then the person comes over and helps. The outcome makes both of the people feel happy and it constitutes the society a better place. When people want to break away from unhappy people will take other people’s happiness away to make them happy.
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
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 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.
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.
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
For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart Mill defines Utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.
One of the first misconceptions of Utilitarianism that Mill addresses is that it is often interpreted as the opposition of pleasure. Mill corrects this falsehood by stating the following: “Those who know anything about the matter are aware that every writer, from Epicurus to Bentham, be contradistinguished from pleasure, but pleasure itself, together with exemption from pain; and instead of opposing the useful to the agreeable or the ornamental, have always declared that the useful means these, among other things” (Mill, 2007, p. 5). Utilitarianism is, in
The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.
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,
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
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.
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