With a world full of so many unique individuals, the way in which we discuss ethics and morals can cause controversy despite its importance. We must decide who gets to determine what the answer is, how we go about ethics on a community level, and so much more. One of the popular ways we evaluate such is through utilitarianism, which is being concerned with the good and happiness of all; however, there are several issues with adopting a utilitarian point of view. Issues that range from how to apply utilitarianism in practice to how to ensure every person within the community is accounted for. The issue I will be discussing further is the idea of scapegoating. To be the scapegoat is to essentially bear the brunt for others. The scapegoat is set to take the blame of the wrongdoings and mistakes of others, and in extreme cases as shown in our examples, to be killed as a sacrificial “cleansing” of everyone else. This is more popularly seen in Christianity with Jesus acting as the scapegoat for all of mankind, but does that make it okay? Does the story of Jesis dying to prove God’s love make it acceptable that a man was murdered? Is it even acceptable to punish one for the betterment of everyone else?  Is utilitarianism the best way of evaluating happiness and ethics or are the issues too glaring for “happiness for all” to be valid?

First, we will look at a short story by Shirley Jackson titled “The Lottery.” This story follows a ritual that is done in multiple towns, but as we read we learn that other towns are beginning to do away with the ritual. This ritual, the lottery, is an annual event that everyone, even the children, in the town knows about, anticipates, and participates in. While reading the story, we aren’t privy to the knowledge of what the lottery really entails until the end. Throughout the story, we are told the history of the event and see the townspeople gather to participate, but in the end we are faced with the disgusting truth of what is really happening: these people are gathering together, pulling papers, and the person who picks the (un)lucky paper is stoned to death. This example of scapegoating is clear as day. The town is seeking happiness for everyone, or at least everyone that doesn’t get picked on June 27th, but they’re doing so by sacrificing one of their own. Does that not cause a massive issue in the fundamental understanding of utilitarianism? This story showcases a rigid, cold demeanor concerning ethics and morality as a whole. We see children participating in this event, playing around while they wait for it to begin. We see the children being the ones who gather the stones used for the stoning. We hear the women gossiping while they await the beginning and the men joking and smiling. The chosen woman, Mrs. Hutchinson has gone from showing up late to the lottery and making lighthearted jokes to being outraged and upset over the fact it is now her time, begging her fellow community to allow her more time; meanwhile, everyone else in the crowd attempts to “hurry things up” so they can go about their day, and even hand pebbles to her youngest son to participate. This usage of scapegoating has created an environment and community that is cold and sometimes hostile, which I would think are attributes that go against this idea of happiness for all. If those around you are so cold and almost heartless then how happy can one really be? If I know that I don’t care about the life of those around me then how do I find comfort in “knowing” those around me care about my own life? For me, this callousness regarding life would create an environment for my own happiness to diminish.

A more sinister example of scapegoating is shown in a section of Jerzy Kosinski’s story Steps. This section follows a man venturing into a barn and finding a woman, naked, and locked in a cage. This woman has been abused and abandoned and most of the town knows about it, participates in it, and ignores it. The main character, after getting help for the woman, goes back to the town to talk with the town’s priest about the woman in the cage, and what we learn is that this priest has known about this woman and yet he did nothing to stop or help. In talking with the priest, I get the feeling that there are two scapegoats in this story. The obvious scapegoat, the woman in the cage, is being used as an escape for the men in the town. The priest says his congregation stumbles and is weak; therefore, these men are putting their frustrations into this woman, against her will. It is said, in the story, that this woman has been pregnant twice and an herbal woman brought on miscarriages, seemingly against her will. In addition to that, this woman has endured so much sexual assault that when the main character first finds her, she begins rubbing her body in ways that he initially finds enticing. This town is blatantly using this woman as a scapegoat, but they’re also using the priest as well. These parishioners are relaying their sins and misgivings to their priest, who is then to carry those sins and misgivings for the parishioners to be “forgiven.” Therefore, the priest, as in the real world as well, is a scapegoat for the community in a spiritual sense. I think the difference in morality is outstanding: the priest has chosen this path -- he’s probably claimed he felt “called” to this profession as many heads of Christian faith do -- but the woman has not. The woman has been disregarded as an equal human being, her autonomy was stripped away, and she’s been relegated to the equivalent of a punching bag. She’s locked away, hoisted out of sight, and takes the brunt from the whole town against her will. This is quite a difference in types of scapegoats.

Scapegoating is popular amongst hero tales and religions, but the ethical line in the sand resides on autonomy to choose to be the scapegoat. A priest is “called” to perform such tasks, allowing them to opt in or out of bearing the brunt or “taking one for the team.” This is a form of scapegoating that I think can be permissible or at the least reside in a morally gray area in terms of utilitarianism; however, the more sinister form of scapegoating in which autonomy and choice is limited or stripped away is a clear violation of the pursuit of happiness for all. This violation is seen in a more popular story for those of us in the Bible Belt: the story of Jesus. Jesus was born with the sole intention of dying for everyone else. His sole purpose in his limited life was to be mocked and murdered in order for you and I to accept his love and live with him for eternity in heaven after our time on Earth is over. Regardless of whether or not I believe in the narrative, the idea of a father bearing a son just to murder the son for the father’s name sake is among the most sinister ways one can utilize a scapegoat. This creates a following of people who both believe that anything they do wrong in their life can be cleaned and made acceptable if they pray for forgiveness and that believe that anything good happening to their lives is not a matter of their own doing but that God/Jesus is the one who brought it to them. Circling back to forgiveness, amongst certain churches or denominations, this forgiveness can be found multiple times. You can just go out every single day and sin or act unethically and just pray it all away, while in other churches you’re expected to actually take the steps to live in a way that proves you’ve refuted your sins. On account of providing goodness in lives we can discuss “The Lottery” once more. It was mentioned rather briefly that this ritual might be done in order to reap some sort of crop benefit: “Used to be a saying about ‘Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.” This seems to point to the stoning of the scapegoat to act as a sacrifice for the betterment of everyone else, much like Jesus’ crucifixion but it’s done every year rather than once and for all. It’s not explicitly stated, however, that this ritual is done for the sake of the crops or for a transcendental being that bolsters their crops if they kill one of their own. This distinction wouldn’t make the act any more ethical in my opinion; however, having a reason for an action is one step closer to accepting the reason for why you shouldn’t commit the action, which is a step closer to acting ethically, morally, and even for the betterment of everyone around you.

In conclusion, the search for happiness for all is a very nice idea in theory, but, as with most things in the world, is incredibly complicated in practice. There are a number of issues with utilitarianism, but I find scapegoating to be one of the most glaring refutions. If we are seeking the happiness of everyone, but purposefully ignoring the happiness of one, no matter if it is one in all history or one annually, is purposefully ignoring the happiness of at least one person, which is seemingly a paradox. Not only that but ethically, the act of scapegoating creates further ethical issues on an individual level that are corrosive to the community. To quickly wrap up my final point, we’ll look a bit into this corrosiveness of an individual. In my experience, I’ve been applauded by my grandparent’s church for leading a moral life; however, they’ve urged me to publicly proclaim that I do so because of Jesus, despite the fact I don’t believe in Jesus. Jesus is still acting as a scapegoat, this time to take not the blame but the glory, but the people of the church write me off as immoral if I don’t do so. This line of thinking is corrosive to the community and the individual because it takes the self-appreciation out of life and your good deeds. I am not a good person because Jesus allows me to or I fear consequences, nor do I participate in scapegoating to ensure crops grow or make myself feel better. I am a good person simply because I am. To hurt other people hurts me, especially if I were a utilitarian who claims to be concerned with the happiness of everyone.