Of Mice And Men Ethical Dilemma Essay

Of Mice and Men’s Ethical Dilemma
Describe:
The novel, Of Mice and Men, describes a story of two friends, George Milton and Lennie Small. Lennie is a strong, large but mentally disabled man, and George is his caretaker. Set during the Great Depression, this story describes two ranch workers who toil to save money to buy their own ranch. Due to his mental limitations, Lennie often causes trouble at the places he works, causing the duo to flee from ranch to ranch. When the story takes place, Lennie has accidently broken the neck of Curley, their boss’s daughter-in-law. Out for revenge, Curley leads a mob and vows to lynch Lennie. George, who desires to protect Lennie, is unsure what he should do.

Discern:
The main moral dilemma revolves on how George should respond to Lennie’s crime. Since he is the primary caretaker, he has the moral responsibility to protect Lennie, especially

since he cannot protect himself. On the same note, he has the moral responsibility as a citizen to prevent a murderer escape without punishment. Lennie, being mentally disabled has the right to not be held at the same standard as able-bodied men because he was not aware of his actions. Also as a human, he has the right save himself from a cruel and torturous punishment of lynching. Curley, has the right to make sure his wife’s murderer is punished. This is an ethical dilemma since not all rights and obligations can be fulfilled. For example, if George does save Lennie, then Curley’s right to avenge for his wife’s death will not be fulfilled.
Determine
George has at least three options, he can give up Lennie to the mob, run away with him to a different ranch, or shoot him to ensure he dies a painless death. Because he has the moral obligation to protect Lennie, he must make sure that Lennie’s right to escape the mob is fulfilled. However, he also has the duty as a citizen to follow laws, like not commit murder. If he lets the mob punish Lennie, he fails his duty as a caretaker, but follows the law. It he shoots Lennie, he fulfills his role as a caretaker by helping Lennie escape torturous death of lynching, but fails to follow the law. If he chooses to run away with Lennie, there is no guarantee what the consequences would be. He could successfully protect Lennie from the mob, or the mob could catch up to Lennie, putting him in danger again.
Decide
Utilitarians, like, Mill would argue that the right action is one that provides the greatest utility, which is the greatest happiness or inflicts least pain (Mill 4-5). This is because, in Utilitarian theory, the greatest happiness of general society is the end goal. So in order to find which action is the best, one should look at the consequences. If Lennie is let allowed to live, his mental illness and his unusual strength is a potential hazard to people around him. Act utilitarianism only looks at the consequences of an action while rule utilitarianism analyses if there is any major societal and moral rules being broken and the consequences of an action. Because Lennie is prone to causing pain wherever he goes, both types of Utilitarians would argue that the action that keeps Lennie away from other people is better to prevent future harm to other people. Running away with him to a different ranch means that he could cause more harm. In his previous job, Lennie had to flee because he was accused of attempted rape, and now he is on the run for murder. The consequences of this action are uncertain, because there is no guarantee that George would be able to prevent Lennie from making the same mistakes. Therefore, George could be putting more people in danger if he takes Lennie to another ranch, so Utilitarians would not approve of George running away with Lennie.
Between death by the mob and George, the overall happiness level of society would be around the same because Lennie would not be able to cause any more harm. So, to choose the best action, the Utilitarian would look at which action would increases the greatest happiness and prevent the most pain. Because the goal of the mob is just for Lennie to be dead, the matter in which Lennie dies should not affect their level of happiness as their goal would be completed with either course of action. Therefore, to determine what action causes the least amount of pain, the individual pain of George and Lennie must be analyzed. If the mob was able to lynch Lennie, he would have to die a very slow and painful death which seems to maximize his pain, the opposite goal of a Utilitarian. On the same note, George would have to witness the suffering of his best friend Lennie increasing the suffering for both of them. On the other hand, if George were to shoot Lennie through his head, Lennie would virtually have a painless death, thereby minimizing his pain. Although George would have to go through the pain of killing his best friend, he would still have relief that Lennie would not have to go through the tortuous pain of being lynched. Therefore, the Utilitarian would choose to have George shoot Lennie as the net pain is decreased.
Deontologists do not look at the consequences, but at the rightness of an action itself. Kant believes that one should act only in the way that they would will for the maxim to be universalized. He also believes that there are a set of strict rules called perfect obligations that everyone must follow regardless of the situation, like not to lie (Kant 10-13). Actions that break these rules are immoral, because if done at a universal level, the action would cause a contradiction. Therefore, to find the action that more aligns with deontological thinking, each action must be universalized. So, in action two, George must lie to the mob to protect Lennie. Therefore George makes a rule for himself that whenever he or his friend is in trouble, he can lie to get out of it. If this rule is universalized, then it is permissible for anyone to lie to escape punishment. This is a problem according to Kant because if lying is morally permissible, the very concept of communication would break down. This entails a contradiction because, George would not even have the ability to lie to protect a friend in a world where communication does not exist. So George can’t will to lie.
In action three, George must kill Lennie to protect Lennie from an unfair punishment. So George makes a rule for himself that he can kill his friend to protect someone from an unfair punishment. If this ought to be universalized, then anyone can kill to protect someone from an unfair outcome. This is also against deontology as “not to commit murder” is a perfect obligation like “not to lie”. If everyone is allowed to commit murder, the basic concept of security is violated. Without security, people would not want to live with each other due to fear of getting killed, and therefore, society would cease exist. This is a contradiction, since in this world, George would not even have the chance to save Lennie because society would not exist to punish Lennie in the first place. So, George can’t will to kill.
Therefore, the first option most aligns with deontological thinking. The maxim would be that Lennie should be given to the mob to be punished for his crime. The universal maxim for this action would be that any person that committed a crime must face the consequences. If this maxim is used universally, then people who commit crimes will not get away with them, but rather be punished thereby maintaining order in society. This order in society will maximize security, creating a universe in which people will be willing to live in.
Defend:
In this scenario, the utilitarian response is more plausible than the deontological one because it takes the situation and George’s emotions into account. Humans are naturally empathetic creatures, so it is hard for us to separate emotion from actions. A moral theory must take account of human emotion to come up with practical ways to act in ethical dilemmas. If a moral theory pushes for an action that is impractical, most rational beings would stop following the theory. This renders the moral theory useless, as it is not providing a pathway to an ethical life in which humans are willing to follow. In addition, a moral theory that completely disregards the situation could ask for an action that may be following all the principles, but is immoral in the situation. This is exactly what deontology does with this dilemma. Without looking at the scenario, deontology asks for George to give up his mentally disabled friend to a mob that wants to strip him of his human dignity and display his pain to the masses as he dies. Most rational beings with emotions would see that action as immoral. Also, taking account of George’s emotions, it is unlikely that George would even consider giving Lennie to the mob, making deontology the unreasonable theory.
To fulfill this obligation as a caretaker, George should be able to lie to the mob in order to preserve Lennie’s dignity and life. However, deontology’s rigid rules would be opposed to that. Its rigid rules end up doing more harm than good as it fails to look at the consequences. In fact, deontologists would be opposed to breaking those rules even if harm can be prevented (McNaughton 424-26). So if there were to be a scenario in which torturing a terrorist could reveal the location of a bomb that can potentially save tons of people, deontologists would completely forbid that action even if leads to the death of the masses. An action that causes destruction to society, even if it is just according to the principles of deontology, cannot be moral. Both deontology and utilitarianism should agree than society is important. The purpose of a moral law is to serve as a guideline for people to live righteously with other people. Without society, there is no need for any moral law. Therefore any moral theory that preaches for actions that can cause harm to society, is failing to fulfill its purpose. Kant may argue that not looking at the situation makes deontology more objective than utilitarianism. Although having a set of rules that everyone must follow is objective, utilitarianism is objective as well. In utilitarianism, everyone’s happiness, regardless of economic or physical factors, is considered equal, resulting in the same level of objectives that deontology provides without harming society. (Mill 22)
In the end, utilitarianism is simply the better moral theory in this situation because it provides George with an action that is more reasonable.

Utilitarianism considers the wellness of the general population as compared to deontology which seems to only focus on the actions of individuals; therefore, it does a better job at conserving society. Another strength of utilitarianism is that it provides a “no-nonsense advice on practical matters of what one should do” while deontology simply tells people what they cannot do in any situation (Goodin, 25). Because utilitarianism provides an end goal to judge actions upon, it a better tool to determine the best action in George’s dilemma. Also, the end of increasing happiness/minimizing pain is an important value, because no rational being can argue that happiness is morally wrong. So, while shooting Lennie may make George commit the moral crime of murder, it is the best decision in this scenario, as it increases the safety of other civilians, prevents Lennie from the unjust death of lynching, and allows George to fulfill his role as a

caretaker.