So Kelly was a criminal in her past life but has since become a changed woman that has garnered a good reputation in a town where she has become mayor. Unfortunately, a homeless derelict was arrested and has been mistakenly identified as Kelly. Kelly is in a catch-22 right now; she could either own up to her past, take the place of the arrested homeless woman, give up her credibility and let the town suffer because they depend on Kelly’s leadership. Her second option is to do nothing and let the homeless woman get convicted and have her son left without a parent to take care of him. To solve this dilemma, we must use the concept of utilitarianism. The goal of utilitarianism is to maximize the well-being of others; therefore, Kelly should let the homeless woman get arrested so Kelly can continue her duties as mayor and help out the people in her town.
According to utilitarianism, the well-being of everyone is the only thing that matters. Sometimes this requires a sacrifice to be made. Perhaps a …show more content…
“if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally binding” (unknown, para 2). Unfortunately, not everyone benefits from utilitarianism and moral choices people make. Like in the Kelly and homeless women Catch-22, one person (plus the child) had to suffer in order for the majority of the people (Kelly’s town) can benefit, or continue benefiting. There can be one positive thing we can say about the convicted homeless woman, however. Now that she is convicted and in jail, she no longer is homeless; she will be doing her time ‘under a roof’ where she is provided ‘three square meals a day’ and a ‘bed to sleep on’. What did she even have to lose in the first place? Not to mention her kid will probably be taken care of by foster parents. Perhaps, in a way, everybody in the dilemma could
According to utilitarianism, the well-being of everyone is the only thing that matters. Sometimes this requires a sacrifice to be made. Perhaps a …show more content…
“if society were to embrace utilitarianism as an ethic, people would naturally internalize these standards as morally binding” (unknown, para 2). Unfortunately, not everyone benefits from utilitarianism and moral choices people make. Like in the Kelly and homeless women Catch-22, one person (plus the child) had to suffer in order for the majority of the people (Kelly’s town) can benefit, or continue benefiting. There can be one positive thing we can say about the convicted homeless woman, however. Now that she is convicted and in jail, she no longer is homeless; she will be doing her time ‘under a roof’ where she is provided ‘three square meals a day’ and a ‘bed to sleep on’. What did she even have to lose in the first place? Not to mention her kid will probably be taken care of by foster parents. Perhaps, in a way, everybody in the dilemma could