“Those Who Walk Away from Omelas”, a story revealing many moral and ethical dilemmas, creating fundamental questions deep within the reader, concerning The ethics of the path people live in the town of Omelas. Additionally, the two philosophical movements – utilitarianism and deontology – play a crucial role in understanding the right way to accept morality in a seemingly happy environment. Therefore, through the works of Mill and Bentham, the understanding of utilitarianism is explained in terms of morality, and a vast contrast is created with the work of Kant and its opposing understanding. Additionally, as the newly elected "leader" of Omelas, I discuss the importance of the moral value of meaning, supporting Kant's philosophy and shaping the idea of ​​the importance of bursting the bubble of happiness ; finding true happiness within ourselves, as well as our deeply rooted moral values, without being influenced by other factors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay To begin with, when approaching the case from a utilitarian point of view, the terms prosperity, beauty and pleasure would be ethically accepted and fully supported by the authority of myself as a leader . As a result of what John Stuart Mill suggests in his work: "The creed which accepts as the basis of morality the utility or the principle of the greatest happiness maintains that actions are good to the extent that they tend to promote happiness , bad insofar as they tend to promote happiness. produce the opposite of happiness. By happiness we mean pleasure and the absence of pain.” This part of his work supports the notion of accepting the current “orders” of the city. Happiness is a fundamental goal and everything an individual does should be seen as a contribution to the ultimate goal of achieving “not the greatest happiness of the agent, but the greatest total happiness.” It is seen as an overall goal when the well-being of the entire group is more important than the pleasure and prosperity of just one person. Thus, the sacrifice of the child locked in the cellar, plunged into misery and frequently beaten, as well as the well-being of his potentially existing parents, is worth it; due to the overall happiness and prosperity of the citizens of Omelas. Furthermore, Bentham's teachings contribute to the very understanding of this situation, at first very simple, but having within it a fundamental awareness of the world around us. He suggests that happiness has intrinsic value and distinguishes between very different types of pleasures (Gibbs 42, 43). In contradiction to Bentham's worldview, Mill differentiates between higher pleasures (poetry, reading, etc.) and ordinary pleasures (pleasures whose original core is in animal nature). Furthermore, he suggests that there should be no qualifications for happiness (Moulin 14). Bentham recognizes that there are different types of pleasure with different intensity but qualifies them into categories. Furthermore, Mill suggests that the happiness of all is more important than the happiness of just one of all. Based on the teachings of the two philosophers, it can be concluded that the moral values ​​and understandings of the citizens of Omelas City are correct and therefore should not be changed. Moreover, the streets of the city radiate joy and pleasure; it seems that there are no rules or regulations in people's "house", free to perceive happiness, suggesting that the city exists on the border of surreal life. So, as a utilitarian leader, the position I shouldto adopt is to ignore the deterioration of some to the detriment of the whole and to maintain joy and prosperity for all. Following the utilitarian "standard of morality" deliberately described by the principles of behavior for human conduct, while recognition of such existence, as in Omelas, could be, to the greatest extent possible, assured to all humanity and to “all sentient creation” (Mill 17). Indeed, there are and will be individuals who will not agree with this concept and idea of ​​life, so they will always have their own freedom to seek happiness from Omelas. In fact, the purpose of revealing the city's core existence can be considered to be to give everyone the ultimate freedom to choose their own happiness. On the other hand, if we approach the case from an ethical perspective and more specifically following Emmanuel Kant's philosophy My action, as a leader, in the face of the situation would be completely different. Due to the current situation of the city, this can be accepted as a violation of the moral principles and doctrines that Kant teaches and defends. First, Kant's Principle of Universalization states: "Act only as much as you can at a time." at the same time it will have to become a universal law” (Kant 24). Of course, this can be interpreted as the rhetorical questions "what is the maximum of his actions?" (Kant 24). For example, applying it to context, in Omelas the tortured child hypothetically dies due to hunger or his injuries, does this mean morally and ethically that a new child should be chosen for the prosperity of all ? If this maximum torture of children is approved by everything that is done (in the town of Omelas), whether they admit it or not, the action is universalized and therefore everyone should do it whenever they want. However, there appears a contradiction worth examining, since Kant's formulation states that moral action cannot give rise to contradictions (Kant 12). Therefore, if you can lock an innocent child in a basement because you think it will bring prosperity and happiness to him and/or the entire town, then anyone can do it whenever they feel the need. . This is why physically abusing a child for the good of all is not universalizable, because it is not reasonable to abuse children from time to time thinking that the city and its citizens will prosper. Furthermore, you will never be allowed to violate the moral law, even if others do, even if it is for a good cause. Beside this, the humanity formula adds validity to why the case of the town of Omelas is not morally ethical. “Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of others, always as an end and never as a mere means,” while “mere means” can be defined as your own benefit (Kant 29). For example, the people of Omelas constantly use things for their own benefit during festivals and ordinary days, such as shoes for walking and if they stopped giving them, the shoes would no longer be used. Shoes would therefore be used as a simple means. However, as acceptable as it is to use objects as “marine means,” one should not do so with humans since Kant defines us human beings as ends – in – ourselves (Kant 28 ,29). To be our own ends, not used by others as “mere” objects because we can set goals, work to achieve them, possess rational thought and autonomy (Kant 7, 19). In this sense, it is not morally acceptable for the child to be used as a “mere means” by._2020_0999_2_25_70)