The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas Analysis

947 Words2 Pages

The city of happiness (“The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas”) (Sandel, 2010:40). The citizens of Omelas are the perfect demonstration of a Utilitarian society. All the population know the child is in a room suffering in misery. All they acknowledge the child has to remain there in order to maintain their happiness and the beauty of their city. From a utilitarian perspective, this is the right thing to do, since the most important principle is generating the greatest happiness for the greatest number no mattering intentions. It is consequentialism principle, ends justify means; It this case, the greatest happiness of an entire city depends on only the suffering of one child. Utilitarian perspective claims numbers count. The child’s unhappiness, …show more content…

First, the principal aims of the death penalty are to protect society from terrible criminals, also prevent futures crimes by causing fear in other prisoners. In fact, as in every law, the capital punishment seek to preserve society welfare. In this case, the death of Gary Hilton would produce satisfaction and a sense of justice for the family of the victims and the society itself. Besides, the capital punishment deters Hilton to murder more people. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, the Hilton death would be justified since it would prevent the murder of other innocent individuals. Moreover, being in prison for the rest of his life is not making Hilton happy, so the happiness of the community decrease as well because they are paying taxes for the wellbeing of the society, but making people unhappy. Therefore, if the government execute Hilton. It will save money that in a future may be invested in culture and arts instead of housing the prisoners, it will increase the happiness of the …show more content…

So according to Kant’s moral theory, Hilton has to be treated with dignity, it means He does not deserve to die, despite his sins. However, Kant contradicts himself in his theory of punishment. Kant takes retributive punishment as a moral function. In fact, when a person commits a crime, he is adopting a categorical imperative, the person is universalising its maxim (a rule of conduct). Consequently, the criminal deserves to “live under the law he implicitly sets up in his criminal act.”(Fleischacker, 1988:442). In other words, Gary Hilton deserves to be punished with the same methods he used to kill his victims and only then would be justice. Although it does not have to be taken literally, the deontological theory acknowledge that the death penalty of Gary Hilton is a morally appropriate punishment.
To analyse this case with a virtue ethics perspective may be difficult since Aristotelian theory only approaches the character of the person in general, not their actions in different situations. For instance, if the case of Hilton is analysed, it has to be presented his behaviour during all his

Open Document