The inutility of utilitarianism

Moreover another difficult question emerges in the Hunger Games: why should we seek to maximise the well-being of everyone? Why should those in power in the Capitol jeopardize their standard of living and their whole way of life for those in the Districts who have a history of rebellion? Conversely, why should those in the Districts seek the well-being of their oppressors? Punishment and revenge plays a huge part in the motivation and actions of both the Capitol and the rebels.

Harris' moral landscape fails to offer objective reasons to determine 'what is right'. Slavery, impoverishment and the awful Hunger Games can be justified for peace, security and the maximisation of the entertainment and flourishing of those in the Capitol.

Moreover Harris' moral landscape conception can be used to justify injustice on either side. This theme is crystalised in Mockingjay (pp 221 and 222) in a conversation between Gale (Everdeen's hunting partner and confidant) and Everdeen. The conversation was essentially about the ethical limits of Harris' moral landscape:

Gale comments,"What difference is there, really, between crushing our enemy in a mine or blowing them out of the sky with one of Beetee's arrows? The result is the same."

Everdeen responds, "I don't know. We were under attack in Eight, for one thing. The hospital was under attack."

"Yes, and those hoverplanes came from District Two" he says, 'So by taking them out, we prevented further attacks."

"But that kind of thinking … you could turn it into an argument for killing anyone at any time. You could justify sending kids into the Hunger Games to prevent the districts from getting out of line."

Exactly! If the maximisation of 'well-being' is the measure of all ethical decisions then the some of the most heinous of crimes can be justified because it is believed that they will lead to the greatest well-being. This is why the failure to define well-being and allowing the exception of injustice is so crucial.

Harris admits that there are multiple 'peaks' of well-being on his moral landscape, but this exacerbates the problem. Rather than developing an objective measure of morality, almost any form of morality can be justified.

The Hunger Games demonstrate just how complex moral problems can be. It demonstrates how there may be many peaks on the moral landscape, which actually fails to really help us make 'objective' moral decisions. Instead in the Hunger Games demonstrates that however we define and measure 'well-being' the moral landscape can be used to justify any type of behaviour. In Panem the moral landscape is reduced to a moral lottery - and may the odds be ever in your favour.