The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.

[xorbie]

Well, at least two of us think this would make a good idea for a thread. Basically, the premise of this short story is that there is a town in which life is perfect, save for this one kid who lives in a closet in his own feces and has absolutely no education. Every child in Omelas must, at some young age (I don't remember what specifically) be shown this kid.

Most of them forget about it, and continue to live in this perfect world they have. However, there are others. They, in the middle of the night, walk off and leave Omelas, climbing through the mountains and into the rest of the world.

Of course, this is not doing justice to the story, but that is the basic point. I was just wondering what people have read into the story, what metaphors they saw, do they agree with the point of the author (hell, what is the point of the author)?

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by xorbie
I was just wondering what people have read into the story, what metaphors they saw, do they agree with the point of the author (hell, what is the point of the author)?

I think the author wants us to ponder the moral implications of having a perfect society whose perfection depends upon allowing some kind of atrocity to occur.

Although the point of the story is clear enough, I don't think that it is a very realistic reflection of how the 'real world' actually works.

It's an oversimplification.

One person's (or society's) happiness (or just its existence) doesn't depend on another person's (or society's) unhappiness.

Of course, fiction doesn't have to reflect the truth perfectly...sometimes fiction is meant to be didactic. The story alerts us to some truth (not necessarily articulated in the narrative itself) 'out there,' in the real world. There to encourage us as readers to reflect on the underpinnings and implications of our own existence. To question, deeply, how our lives affect those of other people.

It's a disturbing wee story.

Like 1984. A dystopian vision.

[xorbie]

Yeah, I think that's definately part of it. But another important part is that (a) there is a reason why people leave. I think that the kid might not jut be a metaphor, but also serves as a test. Perhaps the author is saing that if all the people who are willing to live happily knowing that someone is sufering lived together, their society would be perfect. All the people who can't live there leave.

Also, I think that (b) the author knows this world is not really realistic, which is why it's in the middle of nowhere, and you have to climb through mountains and clouds and what not to get to the real world.

[wiploc]

The entire story (very short) is the second entry on this page:
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (http://www.crosswinds.net/~marlerjc/omelas.html)

The story makes me ask myself in what ways my happiness depends on other people's unhappiness, and how comfortable I am with that. How comfortable should I be? And, ultimately, if I could figure out a way to walk away from it, should I?

These questions apply to all sorts of situations. For instance, Chistians have to tell themselves that a world with hellfire in it is the best of all possible worlds. Ursula Le Guin's story presents them with a contrast: They see a real paradise, where people are really happy, and only one person suffers for it, and that suffering, while it lasts his whole life, last for only one lifetime. Is this not a better, more benevolent, vision than the Christian vision of a few people in Heaven and a great many people suffering searing pain forever in Hell? Should a Christian, a believing Christian, walk away from that?

crc

[xorbie]

:notworthy

Very good analysis. I have never considered that. Wow. I hope there are some theists here to read that, and I wonder what they would say. Very good point.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by xorbie
Yeah, I think that's definately part of it. But another important part is that (a) there is a reason why people leave. I think that the kid might not jut be a metaphor, but also serves as a test. Perhaps the author is saing that if all the people who are willing to live happily knowing that someone is sufering lived together, their society would be perfect. All the people who can't live there leave.

Also, I think that (b) the author knows this world is not really realistic, which is why it's in the middle of nowhere, and you have to climb through mountains and clouds and what not to get to the real world.

The narrative contains an argument against utilitarianism.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Luiseach
The narrative contains an argument against utilitarianism.

Would you elaborate?
crc

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by wiploc
Would you elaborate?
crc

John Stuart Mill maintains that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the objective of utilitarianism.

Le Guin's narrative about a society that depends on the continual suffering of a child poses a disturbing question about the morality of utilitarian philosophies in general: is it moral/ethical to allow one person to suffer so that other people may be happy?

Kant saw people as ends in themselves, and thought we shouldn't use people as means.

Le Guin's criticisms of the moral implications of utilitarianism in 'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' suggest that she might agree with Kant's view of the value of human beings.

The ones who are shown the suffering child, and who learn to live with the knowledge of what, exactly, allows them to be happy are held to be morally reprehensible, within the context of the narrative:

'They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them have come to see it, others are content merely to know it is there. They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery' (Le Guin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, http://www.crosswinds.net/~marlerjc/omelas.html).

As the narrator goes on to say, most people rationalise the child's suffering:

'Their tears at the bitter injustice dry when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept it...They know that if the wretched one were not there snivelling in the dark, the other one, the flute-player, could make no joyful music as the young riders line up in their beauty for the race in the sunlight of the first morning of summer' (Le Guin, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, http://www.crosswinds.net/~marlerjc/omelas.html).

There are others, however, who cannot live in a society whose happiness depends upon a scapegoat. So they leave.

It might seem, at first glance, that the ones who walk away from Omelas, and who are rejecting the utilitarian use of the child, could be held as morally superior to the ones who do not walk away. However, the people who leave Omelas cannot evade moral judgement; their actions also entail the perpetuation of the child's suffering.

Theirs is not a rebellion against the philsophical underpinnings of Omelas, for a rebellion against utilitarianism would involve rescuing the child.

Whether a person stays in Omelas or leaves it, either decision allows both the society and the atrocity that holds it together to survive.

[three4jump]

Suppose I were a christian, and I could get into heaven by behaving myself. If I became a serial killer of christian children, all those innocents would go to heaven for sure and be very happy, and only I would go to hell and suffer for eternity. Wouldn't it be the christian thing to do, to create an Omilas/heaven full of happy children that only cost the suffering of one person?

[long winded fool]

Perhaps the child living in squalor is named Jesus? Show all the children what Jesus had/has to go through to ensure them eternal happiness in Perfect Town, and why they should be eternally thankful and eternally indebted to Him. It sounds like it could be a story about Christians leaving the fold once they truly realize that the foundation of their religion is human sacrifice.


Sacrifice little Jesus so the rest of the children can be saved from the inconvenience of imperfection.

Make sure all the rest of the children appreciate the gravity of little Jesus' sacrifice.

If this makes any of the children feel bad, they must leave for Omelas to remain perfect, and the adults can do nothing but scratch their heads, feeling nothing but ironic admiration for the child in the closet.

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by long winded fool
Perhaps the child living in squalor is named Jesus?

Perhaps it is...at the same time, however, Le Guin doesn't name the child 'Jesus' within the narrative.

The child's function as a character in the text is as a scapegoat for the society of Omelas; he or she is not necessarily intended to represent Christ in particular. Certainly, we can view Christ as a scapegoat figure as well, but that doesn't mean that Le Guin meant us to see her scapegoat as Christ.

There are possibilities for a more nuanced and complex interpretation than could be achieved by limiting the text to a Christian reading.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Perhaps it is...at the same time, however, Le Guin doesn't name the child 'Jesus' within the narrative.

The child's function as a character in the text is as a scapegoat for the society of Omelas; he or she is not necessarily intended to represent Christ in particular. Certainly, we can view Christ as a scapegoat figure as well, but that doesn't mean that Le Guin meant us to see her scapegoat as Christ.

There are possibilities for a more nuanced and complex interpretation than could be achieved by limiting the text to a Christian reading.

Seems to me that we don't like having the kid suffering in the basement, even if that does buy our happiness. It taints, it stains, it sours the happiness so purchased. Even if the sacrafice were voluntary, as Christ's is said to be, it would demean a paradise. A paradise purchased at such a price is less than a paradise.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Luiseach
John Stuart Mill maintains that "the greatest good for the greatest number" is the objective of utilitarianism.

Le Guin's narrative about a society that depends on the continual suffering of a child poses a disturbing question about the morality of utilitarian philosophies in general: is it moral/ethical to allow one person to suffer so that other people may be happy?

Kant saw people as ends in themselves, and thought we shouldn't use people as means.

Le Guin's criticisms of the moral implications of utilitarianism in 'The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas' suggest that she might agree with Kant's view of the value of human beings.

I keep trying to draft counter-arguments, refutations, but they lack cogency. So I'll just say you've got a point. Touche. It may be that the only reason I don't like your argument is that I'm a utilitarian. :)

I think utilitarianism has to be the underlying basis of all moral systems. At least of all moral systems that matter. What would be the point of a moral system that didn't have human happiness as the goal?

And I still have reservations about the way the story is set up if it is supposed to have an anti-utilitarian theme. Let me introduce an analogy:

We have eleven people in a lifeboat. They each have ten units of happiness. They also each have food, but ten of them gang up on the eleventh, take his food, and share it among themselves. If the result is that one person has no units of happiness, and the others eleven units each, then there are still 110 units of happiness total. An act utiltarian would call that a wash; no harm done.

A rule utilitarian would object, though. He would say that even if in this specific case happiness had been increased to above 110 units, in general we will be happier if people don't go around stealing each other's lunches.

In Omelas, however, it is set up so that, except for the victim, everybody's happiness is very high. You can't argue that they would be happier without a victim. So a rule utilitarian would be forced to agree that the victimization of the scapegoat is a good thing. (Sounds like I'm making your case for you doesn't it?)

But, in Omelas there is no possiblity of making the victim happy. If we could give the victim back his luch, so to speak, we could have an anti-utilitarian moral. But if helping the victim brings down the wrath of god so that everybody --- including the victim --- has to be isolated in a basement, then nobody, not even the victim, benefits from an attempt to help the victim. This doesn't, it seems to me, lend itself to an anti-utilitarian moral.

But you made a good case that anti-utilitarianism can be seen as the moral of the story. I certainly can't say you're wrong. I'd have just written it differently if it was my story and that was my point.

crc

[Luiseach]

Originally posted by wiploc
I keep trying to draft counter-arguments, refutations, but they lack cogency. So I'll just say you've got a point. Touche. It may be that the only reason I don't like your argument is that I'm a utilitarian. :)

I think it's difficult to ignore the moral and ethical efficacy of utilitarianism. After all, its aim is to make the most people possible as happy as possible.

However, I think the cleverness of Le Guin's story is in its ability to make us see what utilitarianism could be like, taken ad absurdum, or perhaps even just to its logical limits.

I think utilitarianism has to be the underlying basis of all moral systems. At least of all moral systems that matter. What would be the point of a moral system that didn't have human happiness as the goal?

Absolutely. I agree.

And I still have reservations about the way the story is set up if it is supposed to have an anti-utilitarian theme. Let me introduce an analogy:

We have eleven people in a lifeboat. They each have ten units of happiness. They also each have food, but ten of them gang up on the eleventh, take his food, and share it among themselves. If the result is that one person has no units of happiness, and the others eleven units each, then there are still 110 units of happiness total. An act utiltarian would call that a wash; no harm done.

A rule utilitarian would object, though. He would say that even if in this specific case happiness had been increased to above 110 units, in general we will be happier if people don't go around stealing each other's lunches.

In Omelas, however, it is set up so that, except for the victim, everybody's happiness is very high. You can't argue that they would be happier without a victim. So a rule utilitarian would be forced to agree that the victimization of the scapegoat is a good thing. (Sounds like I'm making your case for you doesn't it?)

But, in Omelas there is no possiblity of making the victim happy. If we could give the victim back his luch, so to speak, we could have an anti-utilitarian moral. But if helping the victim brings down the wrath of god so that everybody --- including the victim --- has to be isolated in a basement, then nobody, not even the victim, benefits from an attempt to help the victim. This doesn't, it seems to me, lend itself to an anti-utilitarian moral.

There is no mention in the narrative of what or who, exactly, would bring about the destruction of Omelas, should the child be rescued. The people claim to 'know' that the destruction would happen; each generation is told that their happiness depends upon the child's suffering. They have no evidence of what would happen should they desist from their scapegoating ways. After all, if they had tested the theory of scapegoating that they believe underpins their happiness by removing the child from the basement, then they would really know, with supporting evidence, whether or not their happiness would remain the same, increase, or decrease.

Within the limits of what we are told by the text, the people of Omelas (both those who stay and those who walk away) think it a basic truth of their society that the utilitarian way is correct, and that their happiness depends upon the perpetual suffering of one person. The status quo is maintained because no one has the courage to question or change it...to risk the consequences by committing the obviously moral and ethical act of rescuing a child in distress.

Omelas proceeds on belief, faith and superstition, although utilitarianism is - to all intents and purposes - a reasoned and logical ethical code (measuring happiness for the most, etc.).

Again, however, we need to remember that this story is Le Guin's testing of the implications of utilitarianism, of how it could, theoretically, bring about immoral and unethical consequences, despite its obvious benefits as an effective moral/ethical system. Le Guin shows up the imperfections in the code. As I pointed out in my first response to the OP, the story is an unrealistic dystopian vision (as it's meant to be, of course).

It's a disturbing wee story. A dilemma.

But you made a good case that anti-utilitarianism can be seen as the moral of the story. I certainly can't say you're wrong. I'd have just written it differently if it was my story and that was my point.

Interesting. How would you end the narrative?

[xorbie]

And this is what I like about the story so much. It can be seen as anti-utilitarian, anti-Christianity, or portraying several other things.

However, here is my little defense of utilitarianism. Expand Omalas to the rest of the world, and I think it is plain that keeping the kid in there is not the best thing to do. The people that walk away are clearly upset about the situation, only now they have some place to go (represented by the real world, basically, in which such fantasies do not take place).

Utilitarians (or some, in any case) would say that you have to differentiate between higher and lower pleasures. Not to mention that as Luiseach was saying, they have no reason to assume that freeing the kid would collapse their society. So it is also an attack on not questioning your beliefs.

[wiploc]

Originally posted by Luiseach
Interesting. How would you end the narrative?

They would pull the kid out of the basement. God would ruin their crops, causing great hardship. There would be an upbeat homily about how things seem worse, but they are really better because we are respecting people's rights. It would be evocative of the defiant mood of the British in their fallout shelters under the rubble during the Battle of Britain.

If I wanted the story to protest act utilitarianism, that would be a fair attempt. How to object to rule utilitarianism, I have no idea; I've never seen it attempted, other than by bluster and insult.



I notice that a couple of you cast doubt on whether bad things would actually happen if the victim was rescued. I read that as one of the givens.

I note too that the feeling at the end is more like that of leaving an idea than of leaving a place. If the story made you dissatisfied with your ethical foundation so that you started looking around, wondering whether there even exists any alternative paradigm, that's about how it would feel. You would be tempted to leave the only place you knew for sure existed. You wouldn't understand how any other place could satisfy. Yet, you would turn your back on what you knew, as if there must be something else. Imagine someone leaving the Church, unable to convey to his friends how he an even imagine another ethos. "But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas." That last line seems to me to exquisitly convey the puzzlement of those watching the departure.
crc