e happiness is based on the misery of a single individual. This individual (child) from birth is locked away in a basement, fed poorly, and completely neglected. In this case if utilitarian theory were correct, then this would be a morally conceivable act. If the pleasure of the people from Omelas is experienced by taking advantage of a child exceeded the pain felt by the child, then the exploitation of the child would be a morally good thing to do. In this scenario utilitarianism did not work because the people of Omelas that saw the child suffering did not want to live there. The people left the town because they had integrity and because they conceived the act as being morally incorrect. Furthermore the people did not want to feel responsible for the acts that were commited towards the child. The seclution of the child can eventually cause greater harm because the people of Omelas will feel unhappiness through guiltness for the act commited to the child. This story proves utilitarianism to be incorrect because people have integrity, values, and moral believes that are very hard to ingnore when making decisions.“The Survival Lottery” by John Harris describes a society in which one individual is randomly choosen to die by donating organs in order to save two persons. What is worse? Killing a human being in order to save two, or letting two human beings die and not killing an innocent man. It is very difficult to weigh the greatest happiness in this case. If you agree with Williams you will be totally against this case because killing an innocent man is wrong, but if you agree with Nielsen you can agree because you are bringing more happiness (two human beings) by killing only one person. Harris mentions that if people were choosen randomly then people would not live totally happy because they would live with fear and unsecurity. Furthermore, the doctors should not interfere with the will of God. But what if two people can ...
