I once read about a city. A fictional city where nearly the entire population lived in comfort, and happiness. However, after reaching a certain age they had to visit a certain individual once every so often. This certain individual was what made everyone's lives so good in the city, because as long as this one individual suffered, the city would continue to be near perfect. Some decided to leave the city afterwards, not being able to live with what their happiness depended on, while others would stay.
Many people in my class at the time reacted in revulsion. The idea that one person's suffering so greatly merely for others to be happy seemed to be wrong. This was a simple thought experiment used to determine whether utilitarianism is a valid moral philosophy. Many people rejected this idea in this thought experiment, yet seem to have little problem living in our current world.
If a single individual suffering greatly for the happiness of others is wrong, then why not speak against our current world, in which a much greater number suffer for the pleasure of the rest of the population? Why not speak against corporations using third world workers, adults as well as children, for incredibly low pay to create extremely popular and expensive products? Why not speak against starvation when there is more than enough food to feed every person? The list goes on and on. But most importantly, why can't they put the parallel between the fictional city and the real world together?
No comments:
Post a Comment