A Thought Experiment

[Coloradomtnman]

Some of you may have read "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin, and understand the point she was making.

I want to use her story here to see how those of us on USMB respond to it, and perhaps get an idea why.

If you wish to read the whole short story, visit this site: http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

Here it is in paraphrased summary:

The citizens of the town of Omelas are happy. The fields are fruitful, they're economy productive, and each citizen lives with plenty. They work hard and everyone is responsible only for themselves which works well as everyone has what they need. Life is beautiful for each and every person, but...

The only reason why everything is going so well is because in the cellar of one of the large houses in the town of Omelas is a small storage closet and in this closet is a child. (I know there isn't any logic to that but this is just a thought experiement). The child is kept in the dark, uncomfortable closet, fed enough to survive, is somewhat mistreated, but for the most part ignored and neglected. Everyone in town is aware of the child and its suffering.

So as long as this child is kept in that room the citizens of Omelas live plentiful, productive, happy lives. But, each day one or a few of the citizens of Omelas leave never to return. Now why would that be? Why would they wish to leave what practically equates to a paradise or utopia?

If the vast majority of people in the town live long, peaceful lives without strife or lack of necessity just because one child suffers, isn't it worth it? If all the other children grow up healthy, strong, moral, educated, and happy, doesn't that outweigh the suffering of only one child?

If so, why do you think so?

If not, why do you believe that?

There are two conclusions that can be reached by how one responds to this story. The obvious one has to do with what one perceives as morally right or good, and the other I will reveal later.

Please respond with your opinions.

 

[Rubber Hoser]

I think it's a dumb story.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I think it's a dumb story.

Great answer and I have to say that I would like to welcome one such as you who brings so much to the topic of discussion with thought provoking responses and clever insights into the human condition. Thanks.

 

[Fatality]

the child in the closet represents 50 million abortions so liberals can feel good about themselves

 

[Rubber Hoser]

Did the child in the closet have a gameboy?

 

[xsited1]

So Social Services is taking care of the child. Sounds about right.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

the child in the closet represents 50 million abortions so liberals can feel good about themselves

How do legalized abortions cause liberals to feel good about themselves?

Good job on maintaining the moral highground.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

So Social Services is taking care of the child. Sounds about right.

Yeah, if only the Republicans hadn't cut the Social Services budget the year before Social Services could've had more resources to better take care of the child.

Now, if all of you could stop attempting to derail the thread and go spout your conservative propaganda elsewhere, perhaps I can get a decent response.

 

[Valerie]

Some of you may have read "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin, and understand the point she was making.

I want to use her story here to see how those of us on USMB respond to it, and perhaps get an idea why.

If you wish to read the whole short story, visit this site: http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

Here it is in paraphrased summary:

The citizens of the town of Omelas are happy. The fields are fruitful, they're economy productive, and each citizen lives with plenty. They work hard and everyone is responsible only for themselves which works well as everyone has what they need. Life is beautiful for each and every person, but...

The only reason why everything is going so well is because in the cellar of one of the large houses in the town of Omelas is a small storage closet and in this closet is a child. (I know there isn't any logic to that but this is just a thought experiement). The child is kept in the dark, uncomfortable closet, fed enough to survive, is somewhat mistreated, but for the most part ignored and neglected. Everyone in town is aware of the child and its suffering.

So as long as this child is kept in that room the citizens of Omelas live plentiful, productive, happy lives. But, each day one or a few of the citizens of Omelas leave never to return. Now why would that be? Why would they wish to leave what practically equates to a paradise or utopia?

If the vast majority of people in the town live long, peaceful lives without strife or lack of necessity just because one child suffers, isn't it worth it? If all the other children grow up healthy, strong, moral, educated, and happy, doesn't that outweigh the suffering of only one child?

If so, why do you think so?

If not, why do you believe that?

There are two conclusions that can be reached by how one responds to this story. The obvious one has to do with what one perceives as morally right or good, and the other I will reveal later.

Please respond with your opinions.

I remember this from college. One of my professors would pose these types of dilemmas on a regular basis and we'd have to write an essay of our gut response.

My response is that you can't in good conscience know the truth about that child suffering and still be "happy" and "moral" without fooling yourself. In my opinion it is a false utopia, an illusion, and a mental torture in and of itself to know that child was suffering.

 

[xsited1]

So Social Services is taking care of the child. Sounds about right.

Yeah, if only the Republicans hadn't cut the Social Services budget the year before Social Services could've had more resources to better take care of the child.

Now, if all of you could stop attempting to derail the thread and go spout your conservative propaganda elsewhere, perhaps I can get a decent response.

Conservative propaganda?

You obviously have no experience with social services. It's not a republican or democrat issue. It just is... bad.

What your thought experiment described sounds exactly like social services to me.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I remember this from college. One of my professors would pose these types of dilemmas on a regular basis and we'd have to write an essay of our gut response.

My response is that you can't in good conscious know the truth about that child suffering and still be "happy" and "moral" without fooling yourself. In my opinion it is a false utopia, an illusion, and a mental torture in and of itself to know that child was suffering.

Thank you, Valerie, for your reponse. Hopefully you'll start a trend.

My response is the same as yours.

 

[xsited1]

Some of you may have read "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula K. LeGuin, and understand the point she was making.

I want to use her story here to see how those of us on USMB respond to it, and perhaps get an idea why.

If you wish to read the whole short story, visit this site: http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

Here it is in paraphrased summary:

The citizens of the town of Omelas are happy. The fields are fruitful, they're economy productive, and each citizen lives with plenty. They work hard and everyone is responsible only for themselves which works well as everyone has what they need. Life is beautiful for each and every person, but...

The only reason why everything is going so well is because in the cellar of one of the large houses in the town of Omelas is a small storage closet and in this closet is a child. (I know there isn't any logic to that but this is just a thought experiement). The child is kept in the dark, uncomfortable closet, fed enough to survive, is somewhat mistreated, but for the most part ignored and neglected. Everyone in town is aware of the child and its suffering.

So as long as this child is kept in that room the citizens of Omelas live plentiful, productive, happy lives. But, each day one or a few of the citizens of Omelas leave never to return. Now why would that be? Why would they wish to leave what practically equates to a paradise or utopia?

If the vast majority of people in the town live long, peaceful lives without strife or lack of necessity just because one child suffers, isn't it worth it? If all the other children grow up healthy, strong, moral, educated, and happy, doesn't that outweigh the suffering of only one child?

If so, why do you think so?

If not, why do you believe that?

There are two conclusions that can be reached by how one responds to this story. The obvious one has to do with what one perceives as morally right or good, and the other I will reveal later.

Please respond with your opinions.

I remember this from college. One of my professors would pose these types of dilemmas on a regular basis and we'd have to write an essay of our gut response.

My response is that you can't in good conscience know the truth about that child suffering and still be "happy" and "moral" without fooling yourself. In my opinion it is a false utopia, an illusion, and a mental torture in and of itself to know that child was suffering.

Of course it is. That's why people should volunteer more.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Conservative propaganda?

You obviously have no experience with social services. It's not a republican or democrat issue. It just is... bad.

What your thought experiment described sounds exactly like social services to me.

You're right, I have had no experience with social services. But I imagine that it is underfunded.

Regarding the thought experiment, you're supposed to make the connection between the town's prosperity and the child's suffering and have a response based on your own moral compass.

If you'd like to discuss Social Services, please start a new thread. I'd like to know your opinion on the subject and why you feel that way.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Of course it is. That's why people should volunteer more.

Volunteer to do what? Be foster parents? Well, maybe we could get companies to pay their employees more, and give them more time off so that people would have the motivation, energy, and time to volunteer as foster parents.

I'm sure that would take care of 99% of neglected and abused children in this country so that Social Services wouldn't have to. Now, what to do about that other "1%"?

 

[Valerie]

You wouldn't believe how many people can coldly affirm that well, everyone else IS happy and everything else IS a perfect utopia, and after all it IS only one unhappy life vs all the other happy lives so yeah, it IS worth it, I would stay!


Sooooo, beware of stepford people!

 

[Valerie]

Volunteer to do what?

I'd volunteer to go get that kid and run far far awaaaay!

 

[xsited1]

Of course it is. That's why people should volunteer more.

Volunteer to do what? Be foster parents? Well, maybe we could get companies to pay their employees more, and give them more time off so that people would have the motivation, energy, and time to volunteer as foster parents.

I'm sure that would take care of 99% of neglected and abused children in this country so that Social Services wouldn't have to. Now, what to do about that other "1%"?

You don't need companies to pay people more or give them more time off. You just need to make the time. Usually, the busiest people volunteer the most. They just make it a priority.

There will always be kids that fall through the cracks. You are searching for perfection and that cannot be achieved by human beings. It most certainly cannot be achieved by any government entity.

 

[xsited1]

Volunteer to do what?

I'd volunteer to go get that kid and run far far awaaaay!

Good for you! I would as well. It's just a matter of taking action.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You wouldn't believe how many people can coldly affirm that well, everyone else IS happy and everything else IS a perfect utopia, and after all it IS only one unhappy life vs all the other happy lives so yeah, it IS worth it, I would stay!

Sooooo, beware of stepford people!

I think you're touching on an important point in understanding what LeGuin was getting at here.

And I think that not only will people rationalize it the way you suggest, but I think that many of them will go even further by blaming the child: that if the child really wanted to it would escape, so since the child obviously doesn't want to escape, it must not be suffering that much, so why not enjoy the prosperity its situation affords everyone else.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You don't need companies to pay people more or give them more time off. You just need to make the time. Usually, the busiest people volunteer the most. They just make it a priority.

There will always be kids that fall through the cracks. You are searching for perfection and that cannot be achieved by human beings. It most certainly cannot be achieved by any government entity.

Oh, xsited, you're such an entrepreneur-worshipper. You're like my brother, in a way, who thinks successful people are somehow better than everyone else in some mysterious way: those busy people are just darn good people - I mean, anyone who works 40 hours, volunteers weekends, works on the house during the evening, helps the spouse clean up after dinner, runs errands, changes the oil in the car, gets to the bank before they close, goes grocery shopping, and somehow has time to spend raising their own children, is just a good person and should be a foster parent too. Hard work WILL achieve everything!

I don't imagine we can achieve perfection, but I think the non-profits don't have the resources to do what they do and take over what the government does as well. What's with you conservatives? You love the police and national security who enforce the laws in threatening and frequently violent ways; but hate those government services designed to help people like social services, medicare, welfare, medicaid, social security (though I can agree on that one since I ain't gonna see any of it when I'm 65), etc. Do you really believe that people give enough in charity to take care of all those less fortunate than ourselves? Do you just hate paying taxes unless you are going to directly benefit from paying those taxes? Sounds like greed to me.