![]() The freedom of autonomy could be considered one of these. The people who stay in Omelas, knowing they are engaged in the exchange of a boy’s misery for their own happiness, justify their actions with a similar idea.ĭuty-based ethics is a contrasting theory to Utilitarianism, arguing that some rules that should be upheld at any cost. Given two choices (and given that we can calculate their prospective social utility), there will always be a right answer according to Utilitarianism. While a bit vague, this is a powerful concept. Championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century, the theory argues that actions are right insofar as they maximize social utility. Utilitarianism is one of the most persuasive attempts at creating a normative ethical theory. Here, I would like to explore the ethical dilemma at the core of “Omelas,” and in doing so, perform a brief analysis of Le Guin’s intent in posing it. Le Guin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” we reach this moral dilemma: is the intense suffering of one boy worth the happiness of a city? I would like to encourage any reader of this article to read Le Guin’s story first - it’s a relatively short read, and in my opinion, very thought-provoking. ![]() Would you guarantee the happiness of a whole city in exchange for the misery of one poor soul? In Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas:” Moral Dilemmas and Authorial Intent
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |