Essay Option 1: Vacation in Omelas
It’s the beginning of the summer season in the beautiful land of Omelas. The citizens of Omelas are busy preparing for the much anticipated summer festival. Music was playing, people were dancing, and children played in the streets. Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant stroll through the downtown village and overhear a discussion between some older children. The children have discovered the child being kept against it’s will in a basement is there to preserve the rest of the citizens happiness. The philosophers must go see what all the discussion is about.
BENTHAM: We must find that child!
KANT: Let’s have one of those children guide us.
BENTHAM: Good thinking.
KANT: Excuse me child but we are vacationing here …show more content…
BENTHAM: The effects of what you say will likely only yield me pain, but go on.
KANT: According to the first formulation of my categorical imperative, one must “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature” (Kant 51).
BENTHAM: What does that mean?
KANT: This means that one ought not expect others to do things one would not also do.
BENTHAM: How can this be applied to the child though?
KANT: The people of Omelas should not expect the child to forgo this pain for their pleasure if they would not do the same for the child.
BENTHAM: Would you forgo the pain to yield happiness for others?
KANT: I cannot say I would.
BENTHAM: What is considered after this first formulation?
KANT: The second formulation commands one to “act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only” (Kant 53).
BENTHAM: So you are going back to what you said earlier?
KANT: Yes the child should not be used as a means for and end. The end being the happiness of the general public.
BENTHAM: But the end pleasure is still greater than the pain of being a …show more content…
Look at all of the happy people here in Omelas compared to one miserable child.
KANT: What comes from the suffering of the child does not matter. The essential concept here is that the child should not have to suffer whatsoever.
BENTHAM: Have you ever thought to ask “What if”?
KANT: That would be the hypothetical imperative. This imperative represents “the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed” (Kant 50).
BENTHAM: So this almost is a consideration of the effects of an action?
KANT: Yes but the hypothetical imperative does not matter because the laws that one ought follow are expressed through categorical imperatives. Additionally, the effects of an action does not make the action morally permissible. What makes the action morally permissible is whether or not a good intention was set in the first place.
BENTHAM: So what do you propose we do?
KANT: I say we help the child to freedom and leave Omelas immediately.
BENTHAM: What about the others? What about their happiness?
KANT: They don’t deserve happiness because their actions are not done out of Goodwill. Their intentions are selfish and their actions are made without consideration of the
It’s the beginning of the summer season in the beautiful land of Omelas. The citizens of Omelas are busy preparing for the much anticipated summer festival. Music was playing, people were dancing, and children played in the streets. Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant stroll through the downtown village and overhear a discussion between some older children. The children have discovered the child being kept against it’s will in a basement is there to preserve the rest of the citizens happiness. The philosophers must go see what all the discussion is about.
BENTHAM: We must find that child!
KANT: Let’s have one of those children guide us.
BENTHAM: Good thinking.
KANT: Excuse me child but we are vacationing here …show more content…
BENTHAM: The effects of what you say will likely only yield me pain, but go on.
KANT: According to the first formulation of my categorical imperative, one must “Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature” (Kant 51).
BENTHAM: What does that mean?
KANT: This means that one ought not expect others to do things one would not also do.
BENTHAM: How can this be applied to the child though?
KANT: The people of Omelas should not expect the child to forgo this pain for their pleasure if they would not do the same for the child.
BENTHAM: Would you forgo the pain to yield happiness for others?
KANT: I cannot say I would.
BENTHAM: What is considered after this first formulation?
KANT: The second formulation commands one to “act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only” (Kant 53).
BENTHAM: So you are going back to what you said earlier?
KANT: Yes the child should not be used as a means for and end. The end being the happiness of the general public.
BENTHAM: But the end pleasure is still greater than the pain of being a …show more content…
Look at all of the happy people here in Omelas compared to one miserable child.
KANT: What comes from the suffering of the child does not matter. The essential concept here is that the child should not have to suffer whatsoever.
BENTHAM: Have you ever thought to ask “What if”?
KANT: That would be the hypothetical imperative. This imperative represents “the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed” (Kant 50).
BENTHAM: So this almost is a consideration of the effects of an action?
KANT: Yes but the hypothetical imperative does not matter because the laws that one ought follow are expressed through categorical imperatives. Additionally, the effects of an action does not make the action morally permissible. What makes the action morally permissible is whether or not a good intention was set in the first place.
BENTHAM: So what do you propose we do?
KANT: I say we help the child to freedom and leave Omelas immediately.
BENTHAM: What about the others? What about their happiness?
KANT: They don’t deserve happiness because their actions are not done out of Goodwill. Their intentions are selfish and their actions are made without consideration of the