“Those who move away from Omelas”, a story that reveals many moral and ethical dilemmas, creating questions of fundamental importance deep within the reader, regarding the ethicality of the path people live in the city of Omelas. Furthermore, the two philosophical movements – utilitarianism and deontology, have a crucial role in understanding what is the right way to accept morality in an apparently happy environment. Therefore, through the work of Mill and Bentham the understanding of utilitarianism is explained, in terms of morality, and a broad contrast is made with the work of Kant and his opposing understanding. Furthermore, as the newly elected "leader" of Omelas, I discuss the importance of the moral value of meaning, supporting Kant's philosophy and giving shape to the idea of ​​the importance of bursting the bubble of happiness; find true happiness within ourselves, as well as our deeply rooted morals, without letting ourselves be influenced by other factors. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay To begin with, when approaching the case from a utilitarian perspective, the terms of 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 implies in his work: “The creed which accepts Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, as the foundation of morality holds that actions are right in so far as they tend to promote happiness, wrong to the extent that they tend to promote happiness. to produce the opposite of happiness. By happiness we mean pleasure and the absence of pain." That part of his work supports the idea of ​​accepting the current “orders” of the city. Happiness is a fundamental goal, and everything an individual does should be perceived as contributing to the ultimate goal of achieving "not the agent's greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness overall." It is perceived as an overall goal while the well-being of the entire group is more important than just one's pleasure and prosperity. Therefore, the child locked in the basement, immersed in misery and frequently beaten, is worth sacrificing, as is the good and well-being of his potentially existing parents; thanks to the general happiness and prosperity of the citizens of Omelas. Furthermore, Bentham's teachings contribute to the very understanding of that situation, very simple at first, but which has at its core a fundamental realization of the world around us. It suggests that happiness has intrinsic value and distinguishes very different types of pleasures (Gibbs 42, 43). In contradiction to Bentham's worldview, Mill makes a difference between higher pleasures (poetry, reading, etc.) and ordinary pleasures (pleasures whose origin is in animal nature). Furthermore, he suggests that there should be no qualifications for happiness (Mill 14). Bentham recognizes that there are various types of pleasure with different intensities, but he categorizes them. Furthermore, Mill suggests that the happiness of all is more important than the happiness of just one of all. Based on the teachings of both philosophers, it can be concluded that the moral values ​​and understanding of the citizens of the city of Omelas are correct and therefore should not be changed. Furthermore, the streets of the city vibrantly radiate joy and delight; it seems that there are no rules and regulations in people's "home", free to perceive happiness, suggesting that the city exists on the border of surreal life. Therefore, as a utilitarian leader, the position I should take is to ignore the deterioration of some to the detriment of all andcontinue to ensure joy and prosperity for all. Following the utilitarian “standard of morality” deliberately described by the behavioral principles for human conduct, while the recognition of such existence, as in Omelas, could be, to the greatest extent possible, secured for all humanity and “all creation sentient” (Mill 17). Indeed, there are and will be individuals who will not agree with that concept and idea of ​​life, so they will always have their own freedom to seek happiness in Omelas. Indeed, the purpose of revealing the core of the city's existence can be considered to be to give each person the ultimate freedom to choose their own happiness. On the contrary, if one approaches the case through a deontological perspective and more specifically following Immanuel According to Kant's philosophy, my action, as a leader, towards the situation would be completely different. The current situation of the city can be accepted as a violation of the moral principles and doctrines that Kant teaches and defends. First, Kant's principle of universalizability states: “Act only according to the maximum that you can at the moment at the same time it must become a universal law” (Kant 24). In any case, it can be interpreted as the rhetorical question "what is the maximum of one's actions?" (Kant 24). For example, applying it to the context, in Omelas hypothetically the tortured child dies due to starvation or his wounds, does this morally and ethically mean that a new child should be chosen for the prosperity of all? If this maxim of torturing children is approved by everything that is done (within the city of Omelas), whether they can admit it or not, the action is universalized and therefore everyone should do it whenever they want. However, a contradiction appears that should be examined, since Kant's formulation states that moral action cannot bring contradictions (Kant 12). So, if you can lock an innocent child in a basement because you believe it will bring prosperity and happiness to him and/or the entire city, then everyone can do it whenever they feel it's necessary. This is why physically abusing a child for the sake of the whole is not universalizable, just as it is not reasonable to occasionally abuse children based on the belief that the city and its citizens will prosper. Furthermore, you would never be allowed to violate the moral law, even if others do it, even if it is for a good cause. Beyond that, the humanity formula adds validity to why the case of the city of Omelas is morally unethical. “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 the “mere means” can be defined as one's advantage (Kant 29). For example, Omela people constantly use things to their advantage during festivals and normal days, such as shoes to walk in, and if they stopped benefiting them, the shoes would no longer be used. So the shoes would be used as a mere means. However, as acceptable as it is to use objects as "means", it is not acceptable to do so with human beings since Kant defines us, human beings as ends - in - ourselves (Kant 28,29). Being our 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 society, since he is a human being and should be recognized as such, with his own values, goals and interests in life, regardless of what they are. This should be kept in mind when being met and respected as an equal creature. Also, Kant._2020_0999_2_25_70)