omelas

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
you should console yourself for having done the best thing that was available to you given the circumstances...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

because you did not give me the option of walking away............ then it is simple............... the fewest unjustified deaths is my answer

Then the problem becomes...

Weighing 1 death compared with 10 deaths seems obvious: The best thing to do is to allow the 1 in order to prevent the 10.

That is weighing death with death.

But how about suffering with suffering?

There might be two relevant dimensions on suffering:
1) Intensity
2) Duration / Number of People

Lets say that with respect to intensity we can rank intensity of suffering on a scale from 0-100 (where 0 is no suffering and 100 is the worst suffering imaginable).

Duration / Number of People is a bit tricky (I think it will work out okay to put this on one scale). The thought here is that 10 people suffering of intensity 50 for 50 years would be equivalent to 20 people suffering of intensity 50 for 25 years. Or that 10 people suffering of intensity 50 for 50 years would be equivalent to 5 people suffering of intensity 100 for 25 years. (I hope this seems plausible).

(There are issues with trying to quantify things in this - and in related - ways...)

So... The omelas are suffering...
But in our present society (without omelas) people who aren't omelas are suffering.

If we add the suffering of omelas then is it better or worse or much the same than the suffering of the non-omelas in current societies?

And with respect to fairness... Is the choice of who will be an omela any fairer or any unfairer than the choice of suffering non-omelas in current societies?

The plot (moral dilemma) thickens...

I believe Omelas is the name of the community; not the people. Maybe they're Omelasians or something?

Leaving Omelas with the only option being that of the story, where one can live with the knowledge the child is suffering and/or suppress that knowledge (like knowing a specific, particular child in a ghetto today and not being able to help) within one's self, try to "forget" it and get on with one's good life or, leave and have full awareness of one's own and other's suffering and start to suffer (no suffering in Omelas, no depression or panic attacks, child abuse or rape, etc.) I would chose to leave because I want to be aware and I want to be responsible for myself. Not being responsible for myself means I don't take responsibility for my self esteem and talents either; can't enjoy my creativity and hard work (there would be no hard work in Omelas I'm thinking, because "hard" would be un-Utopian?) and achievements because they were "bought" by the suffering of the child in the horrid conditions.

it is still simple imo Alex.... i need to understand the model... now you have added the element of other societies... do they exist in the omela scenario, or, are you drawing a co-relation to be used outside the experiment?

if the first..... my answers is that i am described as a victim who has no option evcept to allow unjustified death..... but one part of me says there are still many options available ..... one is organized takeover of omelas.....

if the second... and there are other societies in the omelas model.... again.... i circle back to the original answer.... walk away, begin anew....

am i following you correctly?

I guess I was thinking that in the utopia with omelas...

Lets say that one tenth of the population are omelas and they suffer highly. Say... at 80 or something like that.

Now... In non utopian society... would two tenths of the population suffer more than 40? My thought was... That probably, yes.

In which case... On balance... One would be better off in utopia (if it was about minimising the amount of suffering according to the intensity number/duration scale I provided before).

Sure it isn't fair that the omelas suffer. They didn't do anything to deserve their suffering. We could argue about whether anybody outside utopia deserves their suffering - but we could probably agree that the amount of UNJUSTIFIED suffering outside utopia is higher than the amount of unjustified suffering within it.

I haven't even added a scale for happiness (and thought about how much happiness of some negates the unhappiness of others). Because... That is much more controversial...

But, I don't know... Maybe one thought is that bad as the omela situation is... It is still better than the way things are outside utopia. Perhaps...

can we look at the existence of omelas a a 'snapshot' in time? as in, our view is only of its current stage of development and growth? what is the time factor in the omelas model? is it a 'final answer' scenario? or, simply another day in the life with time for growth?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
nowheretorun said:
imho.......... unjustified death is unjustified............. whose death shall we justify first?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Right on!!

thank you September... this feels very validating to me... i am thankful we could have this discussion

Wow. This thread moved fast. In the case of whether the sheriff should hang the stranger? No. I'm thinking that we are ultimately responsible for our own actions. If the crowd hung a scapegoat, the crowd would suffer the consequences. I believe that you can't murder someone without ruining the rest of your life. You can't know how your own spirit will punish you. Anyhow, that's what I've heard. Even police rarely shoot and kill a person. And when they do, they have to get counseling.

The mob must be brought to justice, no matter what it takes.