[timeforsleep]

Would you walk away from omelas?

[SeptemberMorn]

What is an "omela"?

[BalishBun]

yes I need to know what an omela is before I walk away from it...

[jbug]

http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/86334.html

Here is a link as to what an omela is. I think I would stay as a omela because of familiarity on my part. I don't do well with change.

Jbug

[SeptemberMorn]

"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" (Variations on a theme by William James) is a short story by Ursula K. Le Guin, included in her short story collection The Wind's Twelve Quarters; it won the Hugo Award for short stories in 1974. It has no plot, no characters, no dialogue; merely a setting, the city Omelas. It is often used in discussing the nature and adequacy of utilitarian theories of justice.

In the story, Omelas is a utopian city of happiness and delight, whose inhabitants are smart and cultured. Everything about Omelas is pleasing, except for the secret of the city: the good fortune of Omelas requires that an unfortunate child be kept in filth, darkness and misery, and that all her citizens know of this on coming of age.

No comment.

[Doh2007]

Would you leave or would you take the child with you? Or would you take the place of the child?

The Germans have a word for taking pleasure in the misfortune of another: Schadenfreude

The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me. Matthew 25:40

[SeptemberMorn]

Good point, Doh!

[Perna]

Whatever it is we "avoid" is our omelas. Anything we don't face and fix in our lives, there isn't anywhere we can go to get away from that knowledge. The only way to walk away is to face what it is that bothers us to look at and make it better.

[SeptemberMorn]

Guess I've never been to Omelas, then. I left and took the child with me, but nobody was happy either before or after.

[nowheretorun]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
SeptemberMorn said:
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" (Variations on a theme by William James) is a short story by Ursula K. Le Guin, included in her short story collection The Wind's Twelve Quarters; it won the Hugo Award for short stories in 1974. It has no plot, no characters, no dialogue; merely a setting, the city Omelas. It is often used in discussing the nature and adequacy of utilitarian theories of justice.

In the story, Omelas is a utopian city of happiness and delight, whose inhabitants are smart and cultured. Everything about Omelas is pleasing, except for the secret of the city: the good fortune of Omelas requires that an unfortunate child be kept in filth, darkness and misery, and that all her citizens know of this on coming of age.

No comment.

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

definately i would walk away.......

I agree with the walking away.

And i think, that no society can truly be perfect without trampling on the needs of a few.

[SeptemberMorn]

Like Doh asked me:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Would you leave or would you take the child with you? Or would you take the place of the child?

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

It depends on the situation. If I could, I would take the child away. But that could mean that another child just took his place.

I would think about taking the child's place.

[nowheretorun]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
SeptemberMorn said:
Like Doh asked me:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Would you leave or would you take the child with you? Or would you take the place of the child?

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

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

i would like to be like Moses i guess Sept... lead the people who wanted to go out and start a new improved community...

[SeptemberMorn]

Don't forget that Moses and his people wandered around in the desert for 40 yrs.

[SeptemberMorn]

If either you or I tried to take the place of the child, it wouldn't work. We're not children. We wouldn't be innocent "sacrifices."

IDK, not being acquainted with the whole story, it's hard to make judgements here. Maybe there's a book that we can read? LOL

[nowheretorun]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
SeptemberMorn said:
Don't forget that Moses and his people wandered around in the desert for 40 yrs.

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

i guess that depends on which calendar is used tho, right?

I guess the idea is that if you would sacrifice the one for the many then you are a utilitarian (morality is about promoting the greatest good for the greatest number of people).

If you would not sacrifice the one for the many then you think that there are other things that are important - common examples include justice, fairness etc. I guess this is most often associated with a Kantian view of morality (certain acts are considered immoral because they violate justice - for example) even though they promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

One could... Attempt to say that simply knowing (on coming of age) that a particular person (the child) is being scapegoated (which is surely unjust and unfair) would / could be harmful to the people who know this. Knowing this... And doing nothing... Well, I'd feel guilty, to be sure. Given that... How great can that society really be?

There is a similar case that comes up to illustrate controversy between Kantian and Utilitarian moral theorists. The case of the lonesome stranger:

(You aren't allowed to alter the case at all).

There have been a number of murders in a small town. The sherrif knows beyond all reasonable doubt that the murderer has recently died. The townspeople will have none of this, however. The sherrif knows beyond all reasonable doubt that the townspeople will riot if nobody is hanged for the murders. If the townspeople riot then many innocent lives will be lost.

There is a stranger who wanders into the town. The sherrif knows that the lonesome stranger has no friends and no family to mourn him.

Should the sherrif frame (hang) the lonesome stranger to prevent the townspeople rioting?

I wonder if peoples intuitions about framing the lonesome stranger differ from peoples intuitions about the small child. If they differ... I wonder what the relevant difference between the cases is...

[nowheretorun]

imho.......... unjustified death is unjustified............. whose death shall we justify first?

the absence of one soul makes an absolute differance

[SeptemberMorn]

I'm not using a calendar. I'm using the Bible.

What if we had to choose between

Killing 1 or letting 10 die?

Most people have a point where they say 'kill the one'

The controversy tends to be over precisely where:

Killing 1 or letting 20 die?
Killing 1 or letting 1,0000 die?
Killing 1 or letting all the people in the world die?

Similarly for torturing one to save... However many...

What does the christian bible (new testament, I'm guessing) have to say about the above cases? Or the surgeon vs train case?

Or maybe... There comes a time where ethics is useful even for christians who take what is right to be prescribed (insofar as it is prescribed) in the new testament.

[nowheretorun]

one unjustified death is unjustifed.... who is first? do we have the same options of walking away? beginning anew?

Well...

What if we have to choose between 1 unjustified death and 10 unjustified deaths?

(I am broadly sympathetic. Some people think that 'moral dilemmas' are moral dilemmas because whatever you do it is morally wrong. For example, if you allow 1 unjustified death then that is wrong. If you allow 10 unjustified deaths then that is also wrong. So no matter what you do (in that situation) you do do wrong.

Other people think that the right thing to do is the best thing to do GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, however. They might say that it would be right to allow 1 unjustified death GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES in which you must decide between 1 unjustified death and 10 unjustified deaths. Whereas allowing 1 unjustified death GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES in which it is preventable would of course be wrong. So... right and wrong is relativized to the available options and what is right and what is wrong can vary as the available options vary).

What is the difference between these two above ways of putting things?

One difference would be... Whether you should beat yourself up for having done wrong... Or whether you should console yourself for having done the best thing that was available to you given the circumstances...