Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are considered founders of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory where moral rightness is measured by what brings the most happiness to the most people. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it is based on whether an action is morally justified by its consequences. Bentham and Mill differ in that Bentham reasoned that pleasure was measurable using hedons, units of pleasure, where actions with the highest score were the best action. Instead of Bentham’s quantitative measurement, Mill emphasized the quality of happiness over the quantity. "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the
…show more content…
Derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty, Deontology maintains that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles regardless of outcome. Since the end result should not be taken into consideration, Deontology is a form of nonconsequentialism. Kant argued that the moral value of an action is determined by human will, and good will “is the only thing in the world that can be considered good without qualification” (Kant, 1785). A person must act in accordance with categorical imperatives, meaning one must do an action for the sake of the action and should will that action to become universal law. The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas, by Ursula LeGuin, is a short story about a peaceful town with an accepted, horrific circumstance. The citizens live in complete happiness, content and full of joy. There is no guilt in Omelas. How can that be? The ghastly circumstance is that the citizens of Omelas experience their joyfulness at the sacrifice of a …show more content…
He maintained pleasures were fleeting, whereas happiness consumes larger chunks of time and is largely intellectual, encompassing pleasures as well as struggles. Being a consequentialist, Mills would also remain in Omelas because the result of the suffering child is a community of happiness.
Kant, however, did not agree with Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianistic views. He did not concur that the end justifies the means. If Kant were in Omelas, he would concentrate on whether the action of causing a child to suffer was morally right. He would not accept that it was, and therefore if he could not help the child, Kant would walk away from Omelas.
Although the story about Omelas is pure fiction, the social contract debate it represents can be compared to the choices made daily in today’s society. Is abortion acceptable because the society believes more people benefit from the sacrifice of a child? Is the death penalty acceptable as an “eye for an eye” retribution? Should DNA samples be taken at birth to protect citizens in the future? Should a person be forced to wear a seatbelt when it is his own life that is in jeopardy? The social contracts faced today are moral/ethical dilemmas, similar to the one faced in
Derived from the Greek word deon, meaning duty, Deontology maintains that we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles regardless of outcome. Since the end result should not be taken into consideration, Deontology is a form of nonconsequentialism. Kant argued that the moral value of an action is determined by human will, and good will “is the only thing in the world that can be considered good without qualification” (Kant, 1785). A person must act in accordance with categorical imperatives, meaning one must do an action for the sake of the action and should will that action to become universal law. The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas, by Ursula LeGuin, is a short story about a peaceful town with an accepted, horrific circumstance. The citizens live in complete happiness, content and full of joy. There is no guilt in Omelas. How can that be? The ghastly circumstance is that the citizens of Omelas experience their joyfulness at the sacrifice of a …show more content…
He maintained pleasures were fleeting, whereas happiness consumes larger chunks of time and is largely intellectual, encompassing pleasures as well as struggles. Being a consequentialist, Mills would also remain in Omelas because the result of the suffering child is a community of happiness.
Kant, however, did not agree with Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianistic views. He did not concur that the end justifies the means. If Kant were in Omelas, he would concentrate on whether the action of causing a child to suffer was morally right. He would not accept that it was, and therefore if he could not help the child, Kant would walk away from Omelas.
Although the story about Omelas is pure fiction, the social contract debate it represents can be compared to the choices made daily in today’s society. Is abortion acceptable because the society believes more people benefit from the sacrifice of a child? Is the death penalty acceptable as an “eye for an eye” retribution? Should DNA samples be taken at birth to protect citizens in the future? Should a person be forced to wear a seatbelt when it is his own life that is in jeopardy? The social contracts faced today are moral/ethical dilemmas, similar to the one faced in