What is happiness and prosperity worth?

[Michael Chui]

If you've never read the somewhat famous LeGuin story, it's short and to the point:

http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

So, I have a question. Please be seeing poll.

[kungfoucault]

Yes, I believe I would walk away. And the proof is that I have, like all of us (except for twins and such) been born into this world alone. It's a metaphor of course, just like LeGuin's story. Thanks for the link and the question.

edit: I roused myself out of near-sleep to say, now that I think about it, that's a really illogical story. Kind of messed up. Who could be truly happy under those circumstances, for starters? I want to free that little hypothetical bugger, even if it would mean experiencing less-than happiness for myself and that whole town!

[cacheborn]

Do you have a summarized version?

[Medea33]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

Do you have a summarized version?

I just checked and there's a plot summary on Wikipedia: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wanted to check "it depends," because it seems more honest to admit that one cannot predict how one will act until it happens, but I couldn't do it. The cost of happiness and contentment would be too high to stomach, at least for the person I am now.

[cacheborn]

Originally Posted by Medea33

I just checked and there's a plot summary on Wikipedia: The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wanted to check "it depends," because it seems more honest to admit that one cannot predict how one will act until it happens, but I couldn't do it. The cost of happiness and contentment would be too high to stomach, at least for the person I am now.

Thanks for the link, Medea33. And while I opted for walk away, I do agree with you. it is difficult to predict human nature, especially under stressful conditions. We tend to think of human nature as a continuous, consistent entity that depends on genetics, nurturing etc.

I am reading The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell and he gives some amazing real life examples that smash this concept of human nature to pieces. It seems that most of the time, how we act in case of emergency depends on trivial factors like environment at the particular moment. Of course, that does not mean that we are inconsistent all the time. Nevertheless, predicting human behavior is complicated than we usually think.

[yossarian]

Great story. Thanks for posting it.

I think Ursula has created a false dichotomy with a painful similarity to reality.

[yossarian]

I have no choice but to answer yes even though the fact that I answer that causes me a lot of anguish. I just know that given the situation I would be compelled to leave.

This seems to have some deep metaphysical potency to it but I haven't yet completely figured it out.

Unfortunately I know my answer. I'm not one of the people who finds Omelas boring or trite. I would happily live in Omelas. It's the child in the room that ruins paradise. No child left behind seems to be a law of the universe.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

Do you have a summarized version?

I prefer the full version mostly because a summary loses the effect of the narrative: actually bringing you in to try to imagine Omelas before you know about the child. To convince you of the incredibility and unbelievability of the happiness and joy known there.

Originally Posted by cacheborn

It seems that most of the time, how we act in case of emergency depends on trivial factors like environment at the particular moment. Of course, that does not mean that we are inconsistent all the time. Nevertheless, predicting human behavior is complicated than we usually think.

Well, not quite. I haven't read Gladwell's book, but based on what I know of the subject, most human behavior can be predicted without knowing the participants' histories, as long as you know the "trivial factors" of the moment.

Of course, the purpose of myth is to make this less predictable by offering a "heroic" alternative. (Long article. Short version.)

[Medea33]

Originally Posted by cacheborn

I am reading The Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell and he gives some amazing real life examples that smash this concept of human nature to pieces. It seems that most of the time, how we act in case of emergency depends on trivial factors like environment at the particular moment. Of course, that does not mean that we are inconsistent all the time. Nevertheless, predicting human behavior is complicated than we usually think.

I really liked that book a lot. I liked his book "Blink" even more, though, because I agreed with it from start to finish.

For years, a particularly brutal murder in New York, witnessed by a lot of people who did not step in or even call the police, was cited as evidence of uncaring callousness. Later investigation and a study suggested instead that it was a kind of paralysis, brought on at least in part by the utter certainty that others had already done something.

We can't know what we will do until we do it and our predictive ability is probably linked to what we believe would be the actions of our best self.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I haven't read Gladwell's book, but based on what I know of the subject, most human behavior can be predicted without knowing the participants' histories, as long as you know the "trivial factors" of the moment.

Why would you say that? It's certainly possible with some degree of accuracy to be predictive on a macro scale, but on an individual level? Not so much. There probably isn't sufficient processing power available to accurately measure and assess every variable that leads one individual to make one decision, and certainly not for the much wider landscape of behavior. It's not a matter of each person being special, etc., etc., but rather the impossibility of knowing enough about an individual to be certain of behaviors.

[votoshka]

Interesting!

I would have liked to check YES...but instead I checked NO.

How to explain that? I think when it comes to the crunch, I am just not that strong! Could I leave my family and loved ones (which I would be doing if I left)? No, I don't think so... especially not to go towards a very uncertain future.

Of course, I would probably question WHY the child must be kept like that...because it seems entirely illogical! Maybe I'd just join an underground movement to free the child??!

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by votoshka

Maybe I'd just join an underground movement to free the child??!

But that's the same as answering yes, because if the underground movement was successful, but definition Omelas would crumble.

[Lauxa]

I know that the society I live in inflicts suffering and subjugation on some, yet I do not walk away. Where would I go? Leaving would not help to end the suffering.

[secrets0stolen]

So those of you that answered/are answering yes...

How are you walking away?

[VinceG]

To ask the question, "would you walk away?" is foolish, and misses the entire point of the story. The story is a metaphor. The city is our own society. The child is the poor. The ability to walk away is a luxury that we do not in fact possess. The engine of progress has and has always churned through the lives of millions with no choice but to labor for our pleasure.

By creating this choice, the author is in fact laughing at you. Those who sit there thinking, "I would walk away," are in fact buying whole-heartedly into the illusion of society, for the illusion requires that we believe that ours is a just society. They are in fact making the choice to stay in the city.

There's no escape from the real city.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by VinceG

To ask the question, "would you walk away?" is foolish, and misses the entire point of the story. The story is a metaphor. The city is our own society. The child is the poor. The ability to walk away is a luxury that we do not in fact possess. The engine of progress has and has always churned through the lives of millions with no choice but to labor for our pleasure.

By creating this choice, the author is in fact laughing at you. Those who sit there thinking, "I would walk away," are in fact buying whole-heartedly into the illusion of society, for the illusion requires that we believe that ours is a just society. They are in fact making the choice to stay in the city.

There's no escape from the real city.

Yep, point of my question.

If you are living in such a society, how can you say you would walk away?

There wasn't a poll option that fit me well, so I voted yes for the heck of it. I think I was still imagining myself just leaving and having adventures.

Anyways, I do think this is a false dichotomy, and I think you're wrong that there is no choice in walking away. People do walk away. They're the people that self-sufficiently live in the wilderness, or off the land or in communes--or even say, the Amish.

But, as much as my inner primitivist chimes in, I don't think this is the best option. The problem with the other options though, is that they're large scale, and would meet a lot of very rich people with economic loss.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by VinceG

To ask the question, "would you walk away?" is foolish, and misses the entire point of the story. The story is a metaphor. The city is our own society. The child is the poor. The ability to walk away is a luxury that we do not in fact possess. The engine of progress has and has always churned through the lives of millions with no choice but to labor for our pleasure.

By creating this choice, the author is in fact laughing at you. Those who sit there thinking, "I would walk away," are in fact buying whole-heartedly into the illusion of society, for the illusion requires that we believe that ours is a just society. They are in fact making the choice to stay in the city.

There's no escape from the real city.

I completely disagree.

She is not talking about reality, she's talking about a hypothetical place. In reality, I don't walk away, because the imaginary place she created involves a false dichotomy when applied to reality.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Anyways, I do think this is a false dichotomy, and I think you're wrong that there is no choice in walking away. People do walk away. They're the people that self-sufficiently live in the wilderness, or off the land or in communes--or even say, the Amish.

Self-sufficiency doesn't exist. Even if you live out in the woods alone, you're still relying on the people around you to tolerate you and not root you out and force you under their heel. And even communes have their scapegoats, and also rely on the goodwill of society at large.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by yossarian

She is not talking about reality, she's talking about a hypothetical place.

Are you familiar with the concept of metaphor?

In reality, I don't walk away, because the imaginary place she created involves a false dichotomy when applied to reality.

I'm confused. Can you elaborate?

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Are you familiar with the concept of metaphor?

Why not just ask "are you retarded?"

I'm confused. Can you elaborate?

Ursula is a science fiction writer. Calling all of her fiction allegory or metaphor is very insulting and not accurate. She is using a hypothetical situation to explore human themes, not to make some heavy handed allegorical point about reality.

If her intention was, as you say, to make a metaphor about society, then she is just flat out wrong. The metaphor doesn't fit.

Since the metaphor doesn't fit, and I know her to be very intelligent, I take her story to be a hypothetical thought experiment.

Notice that she sets a strict, unrealistic condition: for Omelas to exist, the neglected child must exist. This is the bargain. She doesn't explain why this happens as if it is derived from some underlying condition. This bargain is a priori true for Omelas. It is an axiom of Omelas.

This does not fit with our reality. There is no axiom (or law) that says our happiness depends on the suffering of one child. There is no bargain that has been struck where for millions of people to be happy, one person must suffer.

It's a thought experiment to investigate the moral landscape of your own psychology and Michael Chui's question is totally valid.

Omelas is purely hypothetical. It's a world with different natural laws than our own.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Self-sufficiency doesn't exist. Even if you live out in the woods alone, you're still relying on the people around you to tolerate you and not root you out and force you under their heel. And even communes have their scapegoats, and also rely on the goodwill of society at large.

You're not self sufficient because you trust others not to seek you out and kill you?

[yossarian]

By the way, the story is obviously informed by popular metaphysical ideas about the nature of Heaven.

If you want to make it allegorical, Omelas is Heaven and the tortured child is in Hell. For Heaven to exist, Hell must also exist due to the nature of duality.

The people who leave Heaven are leaving on the vague hope that they can overcome duality - overcoming duality is called achieving enlightenment. They are leaving to seek enlightenment, an end to suffering, but also an end to happiness. In place of duality an enlightened being experiences pure Oneness, and depending on your favourite tradition, bliss and/or love.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Ursula is a science fiction writer. Calling all of her fiction allegory or metaphor is very insulting and not accurate. She is using a hypothetical situation to explore human themes, not to make some heavy handed allegorical point about reality.

If her intention was, as you say, to make a metaphor about society, then she is just flat out wrong. The metaphor doesn't fit.

Since the metaphor doesn't fit, and I know her to be very intelligent, I take her story to be a hypothetical thought experiment.

Notice that she sets a strict, unrealistic condition: for Omelas to exist, the neglected child must exist. This is the bargain. She doesn't explain why this happens as if it is derived from some underlying condition. This bargain is a priori true for Omelas. It is an axiom of Omelas.

This does not fit with our reality. There is no axiom (or law) that says our happiness depends on the suffering of one child. There is no bargain that has been struck where for millions of people to be happy, one person must suffer.

It's a thought experiment to investigate the moral landscape of your own psychology and Michael Chui's question is totally valid.

Omelas is purely hypothetical. It's a world with different natural laws than our own.

Metaphors are different than allegories--for something to draw parallels to something else can be a metaphor, but allegories are much more literal.

But it does present a false dichotomy, although in a lot of ways that can just be seen as simplifying something to make it more clear, bare, and in your face.

I think there is more than application of this story: the thought experiment and the metaphor being options.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Medea33

Why would you say that? It's certainly possible with some degree of accuracy to be predictive on a macro scale, but on an individual level? Not so much. There probably isn't sufficient processing power available to accurately measure and assess every variable that leads one individual to make one decision, and certainly not for the much wider landscape of behavior. It's not a matter of each person being special, etc., etc., but rather the impossibility of knowing enough about an individual to be certain of behaviors.

My point was that you need to know virtually nothing about the individual. The reason is that most people react to the same things in the same ways. For most predictions, you simply don't need to know very many details. That's why the macro scale exists at all.

Incidentally, you were referring to the Kitty Genovese case.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Why not just ask "are you retarded?"

Because I don't want to know whether you're retarded or not.

Notice that she sets a strict, unrealistic condition: for Omelas to exist, the neglected child must exist.

This is precisely what makes it a metaphor. You're not supposed to look at it straight on, it would make no sense that way. You're supposed to turn your head and look at it sideways.

I'm not saying that this is the only point of the story. As myth, of course it's going to explore all kinds of themes. But you don't read these sorts of things the same way you watch Star Wars, that's not what she intended. It would be like if the Force were actually derived from the color blue, and Leia was birthed from the Sarlacc. Such things do not make sense and have no place in science fiction, they're devices intended to make a broader point.

Science fiction is supposed to explore themes through narration and setting. Myth makes the entire construction into a larger inquiry. This story is obviously myth.

This does not fit with our reality. There is no axiom (or law) that says our happiness depends on the suffering of one child. There is no bargain that has been struck where for millions of people to be happy, one person must suffer.

The bargain is itself a metaphor. What makes Omelas a utopia is that it only requires the suffering of one child. Real societies take the sacrifice of many, and the people who live in it are often far from happy.

Also, the defining trait of the Omelans isn't happiness, as you seem to be so insistent on. The people are witty, urbane, and they're all aware of the child's sacrifice, and are struggling to make that sacrifice worth it.

And so is our society. If you truly believe that you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, giants being men who've succeeded in turning the blood and sweat of others into their own prosperity, then you are truly a fool.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

You're not self sufficient because you trust others not to seek you out and kill you?

I think it's silly to run out into the woods and declare yourself a totally private citizen, subject to no laws and accountable to no one. Every inch of habitable land on this earth belongs to someone. Your ability to survive and thrive will always rely on others.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by VinceG

Because I don't want to know whether you're retarded or not.


This is precisely what makes it a metaphor. You're not supposed to look at it straight on, it would make no sense that way. You're supposed to turn your head and look at it sideways.

I'm not saying that this is the only point of the story. As myth, of course it's going to explore all kinds of themes. But you don't read these sorts of things the same way you watch Star Wars, that's not what she intended. It would be like if the Force were actually derived from the color blue, and Leia was birthed from the Sarlacc. Such things do not make sense and have no place in science fiction, they're devices intended to make a broader point.

Science fiction is supposed to explore themes through narration and setting. Myth makes the entire construction into a larger inquiry. This story is obviously myth.


The bargain is itself a metaphor. What makes Omelas a utopia is that it only requires the suffering of one child. Real societies take the sacrifice of many, and the people who live in it are often far from happy.

Also, the defining trait of the Omelans isn't happiness, as you seem to be so insistent on. The people are witty, urbane, and they're all aware of the child's sacrifice, and are struggling to make that sacrifice worth it.

And so is our society. If you truly believe that you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, giants being men who've succeeded in turning the blood and sweat of others into their own prosperity, then you are truly a fool.

In Omelas, people who strive to end the child's suffering are by definition striving to end the positive aspects of Omelas. This isn't the case with reality. As fewer people suffer, society does not become less happy. It becomes more happy.

If you want to make it a metaphor for society that's ok, but then my response is just that it is provably incorrect.

The fact that some people have been harmed to create what we have now does not mean that by eliminating suffering we eliminate our world.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by VinceG

I think it's silly to run out into the woods and declare yourself a totally private citizen, subject to no laws and accountable to no one. Every inch of habitable land on this earth belongs to someone. Your ability to survive and thrive will always rely on others.

I also think it's a bad idea--but, it is self-sufficiency. Your ability to survive will always rely on your ability to get calories--which doesn't necessarily have to involve other people, but it will involve other living things. The "belonging" of the land is an illusion maintained by the threat of violence (whether from the "owner" or the state). Therefore, the only way you'd be relying on those other people would be, like I said, to not seek you out and kill you.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by yossarian

The fact that some people have been harmed to create what we have now does not mean that by eliminating suffering we eliminate our world.

The author leaves purposefully leaves this open. It's another metaphor. The ending line being, the people who leave "seem to know where they're going, but nobody understands, maybe it doesn't exist."

She's making a statement about optimists, these people are the true utopians. Nobody understands what they're trying to do, and are giving up what is in their mind a totally acceptable world for something that may not even exist. She's playing around with the idea of utopia. It's a utopian myth about utopia itself.

The people who try to end suffering in the real world are similar. Nobody knows what they're trying to do, as far as they're concerned, all these idealists are doing is cutting themselves off from the benefits of society without any real benefit to themselves or others. The city is these people's worlds, and the oppressive reality of our world is reality to most people here. People who try to end it are branded as communists, utopian dreamers, hopeless.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by yossarian

By the way, the story is obviously informed by popular metaphysical ideas about the nature of Heaven.

If you want to make it allegorical, Omelas is Heaven and the tortured child is in Hell. For Heaven to exist, Hell must also exist due to the nature of duality.

The people who leave Heaven are leaving on the vague hope that they can overcome duality - overcoming duality is called achieving enlightenment. They are leaving to seek enlightenment, an end to suffering, but also an end to happiness. In place of duality an enlightened being experiences pure Oneness, and depending on your favourite tradition, bliss and/or love.

Well, when you use this metaphor, the child isn't Hell. It's Jesus Christ.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

I also think it's a bad idea--but, it is self-sufficiency. Your ability to survive will always rely on your ability to get calories--which doesn't necessarily have to involve other people, but it will involve other living things. The "belonging" of the land is an illusion maintained by the threat of violence (whether from the "owner" or the state). Therefore, the only way you'd be relying on those other people would be, like I said, to not seek you out and kill you.

There is the saying, "A man cannot survive by bread alone." If it were merely a matter of calories, then sure, self-sufficiency would be easy.