Posted at 12.28.2018
The ethical theory utilitarianism is a means of making ethical decisions that may benefit others, "what is the right move to make?" Being able to determine the result of a particular action that has the best results for the best number of folks is ethically right. But, how will you compare between your happiness of a whole town resistant to the abuse and overlook of 1?
There are two types of utilitarianism; act and rule. Function utilitarianism identifies the above definition; it is an action that will have an end result that benefits the most people or promotes more intrinsic goodness than any other action without respect to laws or guidelines, it is someone's own choice. For instance, if a person donates money to their favorite charity, not only do they feel great about it, nonetheless they are adding to the bottom line that helps and makes a lot of people happy.
Rule utilitarianism is not reliant on a specific action that creates the best good but it is following a set of rules or set laws and regulations that will have the best outcome for the best amount of people. In course we discussed killing another specific, this is a good example of guideline utilitarianism because you can say if everyone followed the law no-one would have to stress about being wiped out and this will be the best consequence for the greatest number of people vs. no regulation and random getting rid of of individuals. I personally slim more toward function utilitarianism as it offers me the choice of whether to act in a certain way or not in a manner that I believe is ethically right.
In the storyline of "One walks away from Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin, the writer obviously illustrates utilitarianism as the story identifies with a young child, neglected, and surviving in deplorable conditions so the towns people of Omelas can prosper. Omelas is an extremely joyous town with townspeople that are all very happy and seem to be to be living a very enjoyable life with little if any rules and have everything they need. The people of Omelas know about the kid, some even visit the child or bring their children to see the child.
It is not made clear in the storyline why the child was located there or why he has been made to suffer as he's but somehow this child is accountable for the delight of Omelas but the townspeople are barely bothered by it. They seem to do something as though this treatment of the kid is ethical since it brings delight and pleasure to the city. A price from the reading details to this so, "A few of them realize why, plus some do not, nonetheless they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of these city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the knowledge with their scholars, the skill of their producers, even the plethora with their harvest and the kindly weathers of the skies, count wholly on this child's abominable misery. " (Le Guin)
The people of Omela recognize that if indeed they release the kid the contentment of Omelas would be demolished. They are simply so reluctant of getting rid of their perfect world that aren't even thinking about what's ethically right. The people of Omelas dehumanize the kid to make it easier to allow them to accept that it's because of his misery that their town prospers. However, some of the towns individuals who were ridden with guilt made a decision to leave Omelas and walked away. This story is a good example of looking at the higher good and what is ethical. This may be argued as a utilitarian view if the only way Omelas people are happy is if this child suffers.
A follower of Aristotle would not agree with almost all of the towns people as this tale clashes with Aristotle's issues of virtues. The towns people of Omelas knew the treating the kid was wrong however, none of them tried to really stop what was taking place, or kept town as they were either ridden with guilt or didn't want to feel as though they were adding to the abuse of the kid. Aristotle feels that happiness is never forsaking anything else, happiness is the end, the consequence of outcome of all actions. A happy life includes a friendly relationship, knowledge, riches, health, and virtue. Each of these things contributes partly to total pleasure which if your home is a good life you'll achieve happiness, this is being just, virtuous, and morally right.
Aristotle might say that the ones who don't leave are very agreeing to of the child's anguish but they are not doing what's right and just. By being they are not acting virtuously, as they are allowing the well-being of another individuals to be in charge of the delight of Omelas. Would it not be virtuously to leave Omelas and search out contentment where it wasn't for sake of somebody else's well-being? I would dispute that Aristotle might not exactly agree with either staying or leaving, as both are condoning the mistreatment of the child. I really believe Aristotle would tell stay and do the right thing by the child this would be ethically right.
My personal notion is to always work toward the greater good. Inside the story "The ones who leave from Omelas" it was the sacrifice of one for the joy of many. This forced me to look at Aristotle's virtue viewpoint combined with the utilitarian view which is the foremost good for the best number. Looking as of this child's misery pulls you into the ethical portion
of utilitarianism which discounts the greater good and I've found that the greatest good is not always the ethical thing to do especially if it puts somebody else's health or happiness at risk.