Woodinville High School
The Value of Peace and Public Image:
Utilitarianism in fictional and real role models
Anonymous Student
Pre-AP English 10 Period 4
Mr. McCartney
10/14/14
Name 2
In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch, a well-respected lawyer, plays a
unique role in the small southern town of Maycomb in which he lives. Atticus is universally
acknowledged as being a “good guy”, that is, someone who is morally pure or just. This quality the general public perception of moral purity - is ascribed on a larger scale to the moral hero of a
later generation: Jonas Salk; who, as the inventor of the polio vaccine, became a major public
figure during the polio eradication movement and was often portrayed as a moral role model in
1950’s media. Atticus and Salk both faced challenging moral dilemmas during their lives, the
responses to which reveal a deeper and more nuanced moral framework than the trite moral
purity they are often attributed. Through their response to these moral dilemmas one can see that
Atticus and Salk value something other than traditional moral purity. Atticus and Salk both fit
the moral view of utilitarianism, as both would make choices that are traditionally immoral if the
resulting net moral gain was large enough.
Atticus’ utilitarianistic values are shown in how he handles the moral dilemma of
shooting a mad dog. When Tim Johnson, a dog owned by the bus-driver of Maycomb, is spotted
on the outskirts of town and looks to be walking awkwardly, Calpurnia calls the town to tell
them to shut themselves in doors as she believes Tim Johnson may have become rabid. After the
town shuts themselves indoors, Atticus and Heck Tate are called and asked to shoot the dog so
that he can’t cause any harm to the citizens of the town. However, Heck Tate, unsure in his
marksmanship, passes the responsibility to Atticus. Atticus is reluctant at first to take the gun,
but eventually agrees and in one fluid motion he shoots Tim Johnson. It’s not until after he has
been shot that Miss Stephanie offers that, “maybe he wadn’t mad, maybe he was just crazy.”
Name 3
(Lee 96). This calls into question the morality of shooting the dog in the first place, and adds
moral ambiguity. This suggests that Atticus may value something other than traditional moral
purity. In Tim Johnson’s last moments he took “two steps forward, then stopped and raised his
head […] his body [went] rigid” (Lee 96). His final sight, as Donald Noble puts it in his book,
Critical Insights: To Kill a Mockingbird, “Is Atticus Finch. Atticus allows himself to be the
target of an irrational force and to absorb its violence as he acts to protect innocent people. This
stance, his putting himself between the innocent and danger, characterizes the man.” (Noble
147). In a classical analysis of Atticus he is seen as an archetypal hero, a martyr for the good of
the town. The mad dog incident show cases this aspect of him well, however the details of this
particular case can lend themselves to a more nuanced conclusion. What is often overlooked in
these analyses is the ambiguity under which Tim Johnson is killed. It is mentioned multiple times
that it is uncharacteristic to find a mad dog in February (Lee 93, 94, 97). Additionally, Tim
Johnson’s mannerisms are not in keeping with the usual idea of “mad dogs [which] foam at the
mouth, gallop, leap and lunge at throats.” (Lee 94). Evaluating this information muddles the
perfect moral clarity which Atticus is thought to exercise in every decision, and calls for the
reconsideration of Atticus’ values. Traditionally, he is thought to value a form of altruistic
morality, where one’s principal responsibility is the welfare of others. However, killing Tim
Johnson without investigation does not fit into this established moral framework, and suggests
that Atticus may not value altruism but instead values the amity and peace of the townspeople.
This, in turn, suggests that Atticus values avoiding conflict amongst the town as much as
possible, even if that means he has to kill an innocent dog, or damage his reputation. This view
fits most with Utilitarianism as it would say that doing something that is traditionally immoral,
Name 4
such as killing a dog, is justified as long as the net gain in well-being of the town and its people
is greater than the displeasure caused by the loss of the dog.
Jonas Salk’s morality also deviates from the altruism of his public figure to a more
utilitarian view. After Salk invented the Polio vaccine and it was proven to be 90% effective in
curing cases of polio, he became more of a celebrity than a virologist. His popularity ballooned
as he was masqueraded on television and radio as the figurehead of the movement to eradicate
polio. He was seen by the general public as a philanthropist looking to bring healing to the poor
and the sick. His public reputation was bolstered even more when he chose not to patent the
polio vaccine, making it cheaper and easier to access for all those who needed it. When asked
‘who owns the polio vaccine?’ he famously responded, “Well, the people, I would say. There is
no patent. Could you patent the sun?” (Rhodes 42). This succinct rhetorical question came to
encapsulate the polio eradication movement and in a broader sense, was held as an ideal for the
advancement of medical science as a whole. The quote suggests that advancement in the field of
medicine was as powerful as the sun, and any attempts to claim ownership of it was not only
futile, but defied its very nature. Faced with the ability to make immense profit off the Polio
Vaccine, Salk chose to give it to the people as a gift. However, this idealistic view oversimplifies
the situation, and misdirects one to believe that Salk’s choice was purely moral and that medical
science as a whole is unsullied by the pursuit of profit. When considering Salk’s quote it is
important to take into account that “he did not mention that the lawyers from the National
Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had looked into patenting the Salk Vaccine and concluded that
it could not be patented because of prior art – that it would not be considered a patentable
invention by standards of the day” (Zwahlen). This adds a new dimension to Salk’s otherwise
purely moral decision. This doesn’t serve to completely nullify the morality of Salk’s choice –
Name 5
knowing that it in fact was not much of a choice at all – but instead switches the moral dilemma
from creating the patent to maintaining his public reputation as a philanthropist and charitable
person. This highlights the value Salk places on the need for a morally unambiguous hero for the
masses to follow. Salk realized that the populace needed hope during the dark time of the polio
epidemic and he sacrificed his honesty to give it to them. This fits the views of utilitarianism,
because Salk chose to tell a partial truth so that the general public could have a hero to look up to
resulting in a net gain of pleasure at the expense of a small immoral act.
With both Atticus Finch and Jonas Salk, it can be seen that although they are often
portrayed as people who can do no wrong, an alternative interpretation yields a more
complicated moral framework. Each made moral sacrifices for the good of the group, seeing that
it would result in a net gain in the end; these are actions which fit well with the views of
utilitarianism. Both Atticus and Salk show similarities in their approaches to handling moral
dilemmas however they differ subtly in these examples. One last reserve of morality that Atticus
would never breach is his honesty. His whole professional career is devoted to the protection and
propagation of the truth, but Salk sees no sacred boundary, sacrificing his honesty for what he
believed to be the greater good. This highlights that although Salk and Jonas may show similar
themes in their morality they differ in the extent of their use of utilitarianism. This not only
distinguishes the two moralities being presented, but also makes them incompatible entirely, as
one would think the other's actions to be immoral, which shows how the extent of the use of a
moral view can change a morality entirely.
Name 6
Works Cited
Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird. Warner Books ed. New York: Warner, 1982. Print.
Noble, Donald R. Critical Insights: To Kill a Mockingbird : by Harper Lee. Pasadena: Salem,
2010. Print.
Rhodes, John. The End of Plagues: The Global Battle against Infectious Disease. New York
City: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Print.
Zwahlen, Roy. "The Real Reason Why Salk Refused to Patent the Polio Vaccine." Biotech-Now.
Biotechnology Industry Organization, 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2014. <http://www.biotechnow.org/public-policy/patently-biotech/2012/01/the-real-reason-why-salk-refused-to-patent-thepolio-vaccine-a-myth-in-the-making#>.