Human Value and the Problem of Unhappiness in Rule Utilitarianism
Rule utilitarianism emphasises general rather than specific situations so that rules can be applied to ensure the most happiness, and by doing so fails in the same respect as act utilitarianism to address the human worth consequently enabling situations that are less utilitarian than act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism creates rules that would lead to the general overall happiness of individuals and an act is considered moral when it conforms to those rules. This would mean that an act in accordance to rule utilitarianism could be moral, even if the act does not bring about overall happiness, but just because it conformed to a rule that, if the circumstances were different, …show more content…
This would give value to the child’s life and the child’s suffering as it would treat the child as an end, not just the means to an end. Rule utilitarianism promotes that we not should allow the child to live in squalor and that the child should be free to live in Omelas, even if the society would become dreadful and rotten. The story says that if the child were to go free “all the prosperity and beauty of Omelas would wither and be destroyed” (Le Guin 234). Regarless, rule utilitarianism would stand that this would be an acceptable outcome for Omelas, simply because it would no longer be inflicting the suffering upon this one person, and thus fulfilling the rule of not torturing the innocent. Moreover, the level of destruction Omelas would face by freeing the child is insignificant to rule utilitarianism. The society could turn into a wasteland in which everyone would be living just as how the child is described to be living, but since it would be in accordance to following the rule of not torturing the innocent, it would be …show more content…
He believes that this shows respect for the state of being human in itself as the actors thought of the most humane way to solve the problem, with the least horrible outcome. However, having sourced out all the available information, one could make the informed choice of action, not for anyone’s humanity, but simply for the total level of happiness to be higher. Disregarding the rule to conform to original objective of the happiness of all involved, eliminates that view that the rules would be based off the intrinsic value of a person and demonstrates that utilitarianism will ignore any dignity that people have from being
Rule utilitarianism emphasises general rather than specific situations so that rules can be applied to ensure the most happiness, and by doing so fails in the same respect as act utilitarianism to address the human worth consequently enabling situations that are less utilitarian than act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism creates rules that would lead to the general overall happiness of individuals and an act is considered moral when it conforms to those rules. This would mean that an act in accordance to rule utilitarianism could be moral, even if the act does not bring about overall happiness, but just because it conformed to a rule that, if the circumstances were different, …show more content…
This would give value to the child’s life and the child’s suffering as it would treat the child as an end, not just the means to an end. Rule utilitarianism promotes that we not should allow the child to live in squalor and that the child should be free to live in Omelas, even if the society would become dreadful and rotten. The story says that if the child were to go free “all the prosperity and beauty of Omelas would wither and be destroyed” (Le Guin 234). Regarless, rule utilitarianism would stand that this would be an acceptable outcome for Omelas, simply because it would no longer be inflicting the suffering upon this one person, and thus fulfilling the rule of not torturing the innocent. Moreover, the level of destruction Omelas would face by freeing the child is insignificant to rule utilitarianism. The society could turn into a wasteland in which everyone would be living just as how the child is described to be living, but since it would be in accordance to following the rule of not torturing the innocent, it would be …show more content…
He believes that this shows respect for the state of being human in itself as the actors thought of the most humane way to solve the problem, with the least horrible outcome. However, having sourced out all the available information, one could make the informed choice of action, not for anyone’s humanity, but simply for the total level of happiness to be higher. Disregarding the rule to conform to original objective of the happiness of all involved, eliminates that view that the rules would be based off the intrinsic value of a person and demonstrates that utilitarianism will ignore any dignity that people have from being