Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," everyone in the city of Omelas is happy "" everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people's actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this "greatest good" philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality.

First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything "" or, more importantly, anyone "" can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn't this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin's story.

Which of the following best sums up the author's opinion of utilitarianism?

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," everyone in the city of Omelas is happy "" everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people's actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this "greatest good" philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality.

First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything "" or, more importantly, anyone "" can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn't this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin's story.

According to the passage, in utilitarianism

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," everyone in the city of Omelas is happy "" everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people's actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this "greatest good" philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality.

First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything "" or, more importantly, anyone "" can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn't this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin's story.

The author summarizes LeGuin's story primarily to

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," everyone in the city of Omelas is happy "" everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people's actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this "greatest good" philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality.

First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything "" or, more importantly, anyone "" can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn't this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin's story.

From the passage, it can be inferred that the author

Read the passage carefully and then choose the best answer to each question. Answer the question based upon what is stated or implied in the reading passage.

In Ursula LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," everyone in the city of Omelas is happy "" everyone, that is, except the child who is kept locked in a basement closet. The child is left entirely alone and neglected except for occasional visits from the citizens of Omelas. They come at a certain age as a rite of initiation, to learn the secret of the happiness they enjoy. They come to learn that their happiness has a price: the suffering of an innocent child. In the end, most people stay in Omelas; but a few, unable to bear the fact that they are responsible for the suffering of that child, reject this utopia built upon a utilitarian morality.

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based upon the belief that happiness is the ultimate good and that people should use happiness as the measure for determining right and wrong. For utilitarian, the right thing to do is that which will bring about the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, utilitarianism argues that the intention of people's actions does not matter; only the consequences of their actions are morally relevant, because only the consequences determine how much happiness is produced.

Although many useful social policies and much legislation are founded on this "greatest good" philosophy, utilitarianism can be problematic as a basis for morality.

First, happiness is not so easy to quantify, and any measurement is bound to be subjective. Second, in a theory that treats everything except happiness as instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, anything "" or, more importantly, anyone "" can (and should) be treated as a means to an end, if it means greater happiness. This rejects the notion that human beings have their own intrinsic value. Further, utilitarianism puts the burden of the happiness of the masses on the suffering of the few. Is the happiness of many worth the suffering of a few? Why do those few deserve to suffer? Isn't this burden of suffering morally irresponsible? This is the dilemma so brilliantly illustrated in LeGuin's story.

From the author's summary of LeGuin's story, the reader can infer that