Within John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, he explains that under utilitarianism “actions that are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 347). Mill also describes happiness as “intended pleasure and the absence of pain” (Mill 347). Within our complex lives it is difficult to look upon a statement in such a black or white, right or wrong manner. I began to wonder what is the moral obligation of a person when committing acts in the pursuit of happiness? There are people who derive happiness and pleasure from others misfortune. The German language even has a specific name for this called schadenfreude. It is such a prevalent concept that other languages have adopted this word including English.
Within the novel Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling I have found several examples that demonstrate why I propose this question beginning with Tom Riddle in chapter thirteen. Harry discovers through Riddle’s telling that Hagrid was the one who opened the Chamber and was then expelled from…show more content… Here Harry is seen struggling and then finally killing Tom Riddle who turns out to be Lord Voldemort. Harry does this by “plunging the basilisk fang straight into the heart of the book” (Rowling 322). Is this act considered right even though someone died? Harry feels happy at the cost of Riddle’s life. Mill says that, “utilitarianism could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit” (Mill 349). According to Mill’s writings he would believe that Harry’s action is right because he not only was able to save Ginny from Riddle but also was able to close the Chamber of Secrets and save Hogwarts. However, was Harry morally correct in killing
