The effectiveness of a literary piece lies in its power to move the readers to see their lives connected or related to it. In fact, every author, in writing any piece of literature, faces a challenge of making his/her work appeal to the life experiences of people. Definitely, the author's task is to make the literary piece appeal to the reader in such a way that the reader's life/reality is intertwined with the life/reality presented within the literary piece. Else, the challenge is to make the reader see in the literary work the mirror of life as the reader experienced it. In essence, the horizon of the author's reality is merged with that of the reader's so that both are looking at the world presented in the work from the same point of view, as if it is their own. The point is to make the reader move away from being an outsider who objectively observes what occurs in a literary piece, to someone who considers himself/herself a part of the work.
In essence, ‘the great task of all literary artists is to show others their vision, posing it in such a way that others may say: Yes, this is true, this is a part of my life, this is valid for my life'. (Timmerman, 1978: 534) This is in order to make the life lessons found in the literary work stick not only in the mind of the reader but more importantly, within the life of the reader. This is therefore to say that a piece of literature has a far-reaching effect on the lives of the readers, sometimes to the extent of which is unintended, unimagined or unseen by the author as it is solely experienced by the reader in the process of being engrossed in the world of the text.
It prompts the reader to see himself/herself in a new light or to see his/her life with fresh eyes in order to rediscover the different values or aspects of it which he/she was unable to access before. This actuality is likewise observed in a fantasy literature so that its greatness lies in its capacity to hold and offer in a new way ‘the lure of losing self in order to rediscover or recover one's self in a fresher, revitalizing perspective' (Timmerman, 1978: 534).
[...] Overall, his brand of utilitarianism is successful in that he and his supporters are able to refute most criticisms including the suggestion that utilitarianism allows for supererogatory and unjust actions. While his critics would suggest that utilitarianism is impractical when evaluating the consequences of certain actions, Mill would contend that such claims are not grounds to abandon the project of making such evaluations entirely. Ultimately, utilitarianism is a sound moral theory, and in many cases, can have genuinely practical applications. Works Cited: Burns, J. H. [...]
[...] In one sinking boat, there are five children and in the other, the person's own child; the person cannot save both boats. Taking the “greatest happiness principle” into account, as well as Mill's assertion that no one person's happiness is more valuable than another's, the person in this scenario is morally obligated to save the boat with the five children, neglecting the boat that contains their own child. The justification, again, is that the happiness of the five children, as well as their parents, would contribute to the “greater good” in this scenario. [...]
[...] As stated by Jeremy Bentham in A Fragment on Government, is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong” (Burns and Hart, 393). What is considered most beneficial” is measured by the level of happiness an action causes, and what is meant by “happiness” is examined further by Bentham's contemporary, John Stuart Mill. In Utilitarianism, Mill intended to defend the “greatest happiness principle” endorsed by Bentham. The “greatest happiness principle” suggests that any act which results in happiness, and does so for the greatest number of people, is morally obligatory to perform. [...]
[...] Such an act, however, would be seen as unjust or unfair to the passing traveler, especially by deontologists like Kant. Again, much like in the case of supererogatory actions, the criticism that utilitarianism allows for unjust actions to simultaneously be moral does not invalidate the theory outright. Taking this view, one could argue that utilitarianism is theoretically sound, but practically inapplicable. However, if we wanted to evaluate the practicality of utilitarianism in this particular case, Mill would argue that it would not be morally permissible to sacrifice the traveler to save the five patients on the grounds that more long-term consequences are not being taken into consideration. [...]
[...] This consideration does not invalidate utilitarianism as a moral theory, but at best, makes it merely impractical in such specific, supererogatory situations. The impracticality of utilitarianism does not invalidate it as a moral theory outright. Similarly, when we consider the second criticism, we recognize that utilitarianism may allow for actions which are morally obligatory, but may also be considered unjust. To illustrate the point, let us consider a scenario put forth by Judith Jarvis Thompson in The Trolley Problem: suppose a surgeon has five patients, each of whom need five different organs and each of whom will die without the respective organs. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
