How do we balance the greater good for the greater number against justice for the one or the few?
Decisions and actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number, even though considered ethical under Utilitarianism whether good and bad, should be assessed and evaluated in any moral society to include the concept of Human Rights, as was suggested by John Stuart Mill. In the story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, the city of Omelas experiences peace courtesy of the torture that one child is subjected to in a basement somewhere in town. This, in every aspect, is unjust if we take into account the violation of the human rights of the child. In any society, happiness should be founded on justice rather than on unjust actions. A balance should be struck that ensures no human being suffers at the expense of others.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Is happiness a sufficient indicator of the moral worth of an action?
Happiness can never justify the morality of an action given the fact that people might lead happy and fulfilling lives because of participating in morally wrong activities. Leaders can lead happy and comfortable lives from engaging in corrupt practices. The happiness enjoyed by the people of Omelas in this story does not imply that the torture that the child is subjected to is morally good.
If what brings happiness to the many causes suffering for the few, how do we justify that? Or, can it be justified?
The greatest good for the greatest number despite the suffering of the minority can only be justified by the ethics of Utilitarianism. This justification is derived from focusing on the outcome rather than the action itself. This moral framework holds that if the outcome of a certain intervention is good for the majority of the people, then the intervention itself, as per the principle of utilitarianism, is ethical, whether popular or not.
