Arthur Miller, an Enemy of the People Essay

An Enemy of the People, depicts an intriguing playwright in which the dissimilarities of viewpoints between two brothers contributes to a community revolution as well as the expulsion of 1 brother in the community. 1 brother, Doctor Stockmann, presumed the contaminants of the normal water in the town’s health spa was sufficient thinking to be power down. The various other brother, Peter Stockmann, had taken an opposing stance thinking that the spa was the villages only methods to economic salvation, and that final the hot tub would detrimentally affect the whole population from the town.

The location stood in back of Peter, as well as the town held the hot tub and preserved its economical prosperity, whilst Dr . Stockmann was shunned and remaining feeling the fact that town he loved experienced chosen an incorrect priorities and was not fulfilling the meaning duty aid life. While Peter is the protagonist from this story, the question to whether his actions were moral or immoral must be raised. The stance that this essay is going to take in answering this problem is the Functional standpoint explained by David Stuart Mill.

Utilitarianism must be defined in the event to be put on this query. Before Work, Utilitarianism advertised the idea of electricity, or the advertising of pleasure over pain. Enjoyment is then identified as a pleasure that all persons wish to achieve. John Stuart Mill will go further to contribute that “some types of pleasures are usually more desirable and even more valuable than others, ” therefore , “the estimation of pleasures ought to be supposed to depend on quantity by itself (Mill 162). ” Mill also argues that the outcomes are more essential than the motives behind actions. Therefore , in the event the consequences are good then the motives don’t matter.

Complementing the principle of utility, the greatest good for the very best number, Mill’s definition of joy would justify the morality of Philip Stockmann’s actions towards his brother. Philip Stockmann firmly felt that closing the health spa could drastically affect the entire town that his family got worked so difficult to build. In the soapbox towards the crowd Peter says, “we know what this town was without our Institute. We could barely manage to keep the streets in condition.

It was a dead, third-rate hamlet (Ibsen 90). ” Following with, “within five years the ncome of each man from this room will be immensely higher, and someday we will be among the richest and many beautiful hotel towns in the world. ” A large number of good outcomes come from a town that had nothing to a city with a fabulous and profitable resort, these kinds of consequences include; a higher standard of living, better education, and a higher comfort with a new perception dignity inside the town. Following realizing these consequences, the town will never when you go back to the ways. Just as Mill might do, Peter fights pertaining to the greater good of the society.

In doing thus he is providing the greatest good for the greatest quantity of people whether or not a few people have risk of becoming injured from the contaminated drinking water. Dr . Stockmann had great intentions to shield the people in the town, but by standing up against the world he in fact made even more harm than if he’d have held silent, these types of consequences incorporate; causing a revolution in the area, the town shedding him like a doctor, his daughter getting fired coming from her work, and his child not being able to return to school. Doctor Stockmann got good motives, but the horrendous outcome makes his work immoral according Mill. Peter Stockmann injure a few to save lots of many, whereas Dr . Stockmann wanted to probably hurt various to save a couple of.

Mill might conclude that Dr . Stockmann had to the work to protect the healthiness of humanity, but if he was unable to do so with out keeping the happiness of world he must have let his duty proceed. Being raised with the ideology of your neighbor as you may would treat yourself leaves me with a nasty taste in my mouth after arguing that Peter Stockmann was just in the course of actions. Family is family members, and no subject how different views could become I do certainly not agree in expulsing a relative. Democracy in society is definitely a controversial issue, because it introduces the question, would be the decisions created by the public the right decisions?

Morally speaking the masses can be wrong. Like Dr . Stockmann stated, “was this morally perfect for the masses to crucify Jesus? ” The more the problem is confronted it almost makes sense that society can be willing to harm a few just to save so many. I find this story very interesting because it introduces multiple concerns.