Comparing Kant's Categorical Imperative And

Dystopian literature often approaches similar ideas, conveying an author’s rendition of an alternate and undesirable reality. However, embedded within these representations are concepts pertaining to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Bentham’s consequentialist theory of Utilitarianism, each which present in themselves contrasting ideals. The discussion pertaining to these two conflicting philosophies within the dystopian genre are highly relevant, wherein they are tied in to exceed a set point. These ideologies effectively bring to the audience distinct perspectives towards the worth of an individual, the worth of the system, and the overall morality of said dystopian governments within the dystopian genre. On the notion of dystopian representation

As such, authors structure their idea of an undesirable government with the concept of restrained individuality and the overall dehumanization of its citizens. The worth of an individual is something prized by authors, and it is there where they tend to follow Kant’s ideology, reflecting his view on the value of the possession of “rationality,” acknowledging that to deprive one of it is an action which is actively wrongful (Kant, 1). As aforementioned, dystopian law and authority dictates for the individual to strip himself of his identity and autonomy, directly going against the Categorical Imperative. A free mind is one which has power over itself, and is given a choice to agree or disagree. Dystopian societies often neglect this, whether it be by thought control or outright violence. And it is through this end which authors endlessly strive to communicate the detestability of this forced

More often than not, consequentialist tendencies are embedded in dystopian governments, wherein the body is far more important than the individual. Bentham proposes and justifies this idea explaining how an approach that “maximizes utility” can be used, regardless of the means (Bentham, 1). It is in this sense that things that are inherently seen as good, just as those that are bad, can be disregarded if done so for the benefit of a system. Authors project these societies with governments that take advantage of this reasoning, projecting the facade of a perfect society. Dystopian societies so often deprive their citizens of rights so as to benefit themselves in the name of being for the system, as the utilitarian principle permits. Kant’s theory of autonomous is, in effect, disparaged, leaving an opportunity for author to demonstrate their enmity towards such views. George Orwell’s 1984 again demonstrates this as O’Brien clarifies the true intentions of the Party when he concludes that “power is not a means; it is an end” (Orwell, 263). Orwell directly references Utilitarianism with this specific phrasing, and in essence, displays the insensibility of the Party towards its citizens. The sole purpose of the Party is for it to retain its dominance over the people for the sake