Is it really better to be completely deluded about your reality, and live a still fairly normal life, rather than deciding to take arms against your previously unknown captors and live a harsh and barbaric lifestyle, but with complete freedom. This is one of the moral difficulties presented by the movie “The Matrix”. Almost the whole of the human population is living in a complete delusion of their surroundings, thinking that they are actually living normal lives, when in actuality they are energy sources for giant machines. There is are select few that live outside the “matrix” and are mounting a resistance against the machines, but, like previously mentioned, what is the morally correct thing for the “resistance” to do. Leave the people in the matrix, or allow them to fight in a hostile world? According to John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” the choice is simple. Leave them in their world where they could be the happiest. This view is almost naïve in its simplicity. The decision could never be so simple. John Stuart Mill’s “Utilitarianism” explains how the most morally right thing to do, in it’s most simple, broken down form, is the thing that results in the most happiness to whoever is experiencing the consequences. When looked at from this angle, again, the decision Neo from “The Matrix” is very simple: leave all of the people inside the matrix exactly where they are, as their position within the matrix leaves them in more happiness than any life outside it. But, as previously mentioned, this seems like a completely ridiculous idea, as all of those humans are being utterly deceived in ways they cannot possibly imagine. So, how in any way can this be the correct decision? Would it not be better to allow those people to fight for there freedom? Is not freedom an unalienable right of all of humanity? But, then again, would not the decision to take those people out of the matrix be taking away their self same freedom of choice? Taking the decision out of their hands and making it for them, that right there, would be almost the same as the machines themselves. There is the argument that allowing the humans to atrophy in the cocoons that the machines are making them stay in would be the morally incorrect decision. That true happiness is actually imperfect, that the only way to actually be happy with your life as it is, is to be unsatisfied with it. This would allow for pursuit, allow for room to grow and improve your life more than it is. If one is completely happy, then how could there be anything to live for? So, in essence, if one were to take those humans from all their happiness and life within the matrix, everything that they have built within their own minds, release them from the lie in which they are living, and bring them to the hostile world outside the matrix, to fight creatures who are infinitely more powerful than humans, it could be considered the more moral decision, as it improves the actually quality of happiness that they experience. This quality of life, quality of happiness, and quality of freedom is worth any suffering, as it would give those humans something to live for and fight for. That itself improves the morality of the decision to free the humans over that of leaving them in the matrix. It is better to have a certain quality of happiness, than to have more happiness of a lesser quality. But, neither one of these seems to be the truly moral decision. How could anybody take the lives of any other person into their own hands and make it their own decision? Not only that, but to make this decision in the name of morality makes it immoral. Instead, the better decision would, in point of fact, be to not make the decision at all. There is almost no way to make such a decision without infringing upon the rights of those people you are deciding for. So, instead, why not allow them to make the decision for themselves. And this is exactly what the movie “The Matrix” actually does. Neo is first given the choice, “the blue pill, or the red pill”. One would make the person who took it fall asleep and completely forget about “the outside world”. The other would break the consumer free of the clutches of the machines and allow them to live outside the matrix. So, now the decision does actually seem to be quite simple, although very different. It seems that the decision would be to give the decision up to the very person whose choice it should be, the imprisoned person. This way they could retain their freedom of choice, maybe they decide to break free and defeat the machines, or to stay oblivious and live their lives as they remain; but no matter what that decision is, it should be their own. Then again, this decision causes a second moral crisis to surface. By fighting the machines, the human resistance will be making a decision for the other humans who are choosing to stay in the matrix. By fighting the machines, the human resistance would be fighting the matrix, which in turn, would be fighting the people who wished to stay inside the matrix. So, what could the actual correct moral decision be? In fact, is there ever a “correct” moral decision? It seems that, the only logical conclusion to be made from this, is that there is no simple decision to be made. Because each decision that a human makes has a huge effect on the lives of other people. In this case, that same decision could have astronomical effects on the entire human race. So, when that is taken into account, the person making the decisions, in this case, Neo must make this decision for the benefit of humanity. And thus, the decision must be made for the furthering of the entirety of humanity, and thus, no one human’s needs could be made a priority. And so, in conclusion, the imprisonment of humanity must be ended, and all humans must fight the machines to improve the quality of life, freedom, and happiness for all human life.
What a difficult decision. According to John Stuart Mill’s, the proper “Utilitarian” choice would be to leave the humans in the Matrix, because it allows them to stay in their relatively “normal” life. But, leaving them to be deceived on such a degrading level could never possibly be considered the moral choice. There is just something so instinctually wrong about seeing nearly your entire species incapacitated and used so terribly. So even from a purely self-preserving point of view, that decision is wrong. But then again, neither one of these decisions are truly correct, as you are still taking their freedom of choice. So the true choice, from an individual standpoint, would be to allow those people trapped in the matrix the choice to either stay within their deluded lives, or leave it and fight the machines. But from a species stand point, the only choice is to fight and free everyone for the sake of our future.
Citations
The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999. DVD.
Feinberg, J., and R. Shafer-Landau. Reason and responsibility, readings in some basic problems of philosophy. 14. Boston: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2011. Print.
Citations: The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Warner Bros. Pictures, 1999. DVD. Feinberg, J., and R. Shafer-Landau. Reason and responsibility, readings in some basic problems of philosophy. 14. Boston: Wadsworth Pub Co, 2011. Print.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Eventually, you will have a choice to make; a choice that will define: “How to survive life in, The Matrix?” In ‘The Matrix’ nothing is real however, your mind has been conditioned to believe it is real! The Matrix is far too big to defeat; no one can escape it, and we haven’t the means or intelligence to beat those in control! Through my research, I discovered that America is a society of functional illiterates!…
- 18144 Words
- 57 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Gooch, John, and Dorothy U. Seyler. Argument! 2nd Ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.…
- 919 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
Reason’s proper function must be to produce a will which is good in itself but not good merely as a means. This will must be the highest good and the condition of all…
- 1404 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
References: Rachels, J. & Rachels, S. (2010). The elements of moral philosophy (6th ed.). New York,…
- 1319 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
"The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Mill 55). This is how Mill first presents the idea of Utilitarianism. If it promotes happiness it is right, if it promotes the reverse of happiness, then it is wrong. If one were to simply take this statement, without further reading, and then study Le Guin 's "The One 's Who Walk Away from Omelas", one would no doubt conclude that a follower of Mill would agree with the choice made by the people of Omelas. They chose to promote happiness for many, rather than choose happiness for one. This seems to be acceptable at first glance, but a further examination will show that this simply is not true.…
- 1220 Words
- 4 Pages
Better Essays -
Solomon, R.C. & Higgins, K.M. (2015). The Big Question: A Short Introduction to Philosophy (9th ed.) [Online version]. Retrieved from AIU Online Virtual Campus. Introduction to Philosophy: PHIL201-1503A-03 website.…
- 797 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The argument that I have chosen to discuss in this essay is the extreme liberal view. My aim is to show that this argument is false by critically examining and evaluating the argument and the consequences of the extreme liberal view. I am concentrating on the extreme liberal view because I find it to have many more consequences than the other three views. I also find it to be quite a controversial view that I’m sure is not widely held in society.…
- 911 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
References: Bennett, J. (2007). Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting one’s Reason and Seeking…
- 309 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Humanity’s attempts to study the state of society have stretched back throughout the ages. From forefathers such as Socrates or Aristophanes to the great enlightenment philosophers of Locke or Voltaire, all have grappled with the questions of how humanity best functions as a collective. John Stuart Mill, hailed as a paradigmatic liberal political philosopher, continues this tradition of thought in his work On Liberty published in 1859. Mill’s major argument made is that the individual is sovereign in their actions insofar as they do not impeach upon the rights of others. His justifications centre strongly on the principles of utilitarianism, providing a model he believes to offer the greatest happiness to the greatest number. Through specific analysis it can be seen that he optimizes societal benefit by placing import on individuality but conversely justifying exactly when governance and restraint need to be exercised. Overall, his conclusions are an attempt to unify two competing social factors, individual liberty against circumstances in which power can be exerted over another, articulated in what has become known as the ‘harm principle’.…
- 1306 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Kant, I. (1990). “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals.” Exploring philosophy: an introductory anthology (4th ed., pp. 415-420). New York: Oxford University Press.…
- 467 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Philosophy Fifth Edition. John Perry, Michael Bratman, John Martin Fischer. Oxford University Press. 2010. )…
- 1087 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Mill’s Utilitarianism states that in order to be moral, one must make decisions based upon the greatest happiness. In…
- 918 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
“No child left behind” act (NCLB) passed this year through congress which was originally passed in 2002, that shows how can be common sense and experience is replaced. The author, Diane Ravitch pointed out in her book that NCLB promotes the weakness in American public school, rather than improving their strengths. The idea of passing NCLB proven wrong, because it is wasting of federal dollars, it increases corruption, and it a-parts teachers from the school system.…
- 504 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
human rights. However, there is little information available about human rights and how they relate to mental health. Too often, a person may not realise that they are able to do something about their situation, or even that there is something wrong with the way they are being treated. It is therefore vital that people living with mental health problems are able to access information about their human rights and challenge bad treatment. {BIHR, 2006, P.4}.…
- 1524 Words
- 7 Pages
Best Essays -
In John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, Mill discusses the concept of utilitarianism, defined as, “The doctrine that actions are right if they are useful of for the benefit of a majority.” Mill elaborates on this idea and within the second chapter of his essay, addresses many misconceptions towards this view. Addressing the given quote, one misconception made is that utilitarianism degrades the meaning of life. Some people oppose this view because they think that it is wrong to say that there is no better end than pleasure and freedom from pain. Mill replies to this by saying that there are different qualities of pleasure. He professes about a higher quality pleasure being one which you would choose above another pleasure even if it meant pain…
- 249 Words
- 1 Page
Good Essays