China can not be a suffering boy of Omelas, no China nor any other developing country, rather these Third or Tenth World's countries will make Western countries a very very suffering boys and girls of Omelas in a very near future! Ha-Ha-Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even though it would be hard to know about the kid and the circumstances he is in, I think rescuing the kid from that suffering would be egoistic from my part. See, I would feel good about rescuing the kid and even get recognition for being courageous, but by doing that, Im pretty much sacrificing the people's happiness (perfect word/city) Yes, one kid is not going to suffer anymore, but how many more people are going to suffer after that? Im not trying to be mean with the kid thou...
I had to read this story for one of my classes at school and I really couldn't understand it all that well, but then I saw your video and I was like "Oh! Okay now I get it." So thank you so much and I enjoyed watching this video. :)
I would definitely Rescue Him...AftEr All true happiness comes within not without!!There would be no way i would be able to stare him in the eyes and continue living as if nothing i observed was normal!!But i appreciate you breaking down the story too...You made it a little more clearer for me!!
save the boy everybody can be unhappy but i would take care of him and everybody should be equal! Thanks for this video it really helped on my homework!
In fact a LOT of what we believe about rewards, punishment, what we deserve, what motivates us, makes us feel good about ourselves, etc...is all in our heads. The truth is that WE KNOW HOW to help people, and there is more than enough resources to clean up inner cities, to stop human traffiking, to raise mentally whole and healthy people, etc. But we are afraid. We would rather be comfortable and blame it on something beyond our control. My hope is that someday we will become better people.
I think that the answer lies in overcoming our cognitive fallacies. In another story, a man contracts with laborers to work in his field for a certain price. Over the course of the day, the man invites others to join in. At the end of the day, the man pays all the laborers the same amount of money (even tho some had worked 10 hrs and others worked 1). Comparing themselves to others, the first laborers are angry...but if noone had come along, they would have been fine. Happiness is in our head.
It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten. It is feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect. It picks its nose and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals,
It picks its nose and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals, as it sits haunched in the corner farthest from the bucket and the two mops. It is afraid of the mops. It finds them horrible. It shuts its eyes, but it knows the mops are still standing there; and the door is locked; and nobody will come.
You started this in 2006 and here it is 2011 and I am watching it! Thank you so much for your video - it really helped me understand the writing. I have to comment on it for my Abnormal Psych Class. I have been out of school for many years so it is nice to hear a young person comment and get this old brain thinking!
I can see why you said we have to take care of the boy for the rest of his life (b/c that would signify our lack of selfishness) BUT can we take him to an assisted living center...you know what i guess not because that would also prove the author's theory on how we leave responsibility to others.
The particular part in this story that hasn't been repeated much (that I've seen) is this quote. "The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting." This is astoundingly true, and I often wonder why is it that Heaven sounds so boring from what I hear.
The story was absolute crap! Basically she stole the idea of jesus suffering to save mankind's souls. I laugh at all the people who act like they would save the little boy as if they themself are so humane. The only person who wins in the story is the suffering little boy because their is no happy without sad and their is no love without hate. Anoyone in this town wouldnt know how to be happy without knowing suffering. They are all just lost emotionless souls.
thanks for the video. it really helped me get a grasp on the story and a better understanding. i would help the boy. no one should have to suffer for the happiness of others
I have an essay for my final exam this week that has to be about this story. I was struggling with it a little and this really helped me out. Thank you!
Theres no such thing as utopia - thats the point of the story - Omelas is not a utopia they all have to live with the knowledge of the childs suffering, pain, and the responsibilty they have to do this just like all of us must live with our own pain, suffering, and responsiblity - Some choose not to look at it - Others do - But they all rashonalise it just like we all do - we need to its human if we don't we can't go on - those that can't go on leave Omelas
Get ready for your minds to be blown Omelas is life - The boy is the suffering in everybody - You either accept the suffering and learn to appreciate life and make the most of what you have - or decide you can't live with it leave Omelas in other words leave life and kill your self - The Boy isn't real hes a metaphor you can't save him hes ten and yet people who are forty in Omelas saw him when they were young - They learn of pain and suffering when they are old enough to understand justlikewedo
I don't think it's just a metaphor for society. It's a metaphor for a state of mind. The ones who walk away from Omelas are moving toward a different mindset, one where your happiness isn't worth the suffering of another. Saying it might not exist means people might not be able to truly think that way.
I didn't read all the comments, so this may have come up before. I'd like to add an additional condition to rescuing the boy. Once you rescue him, the city would just replace him with someone else.
You saved alot of time for me from re-reading. Thanks for the good summary and analyzing the quotes (which I probably will not remember when it's time for discussion in the class). I guess you can say the symbol in this story is the little boy who is trapped in. I believe the city is Utopia?? Anywho, thanks for the summary.
Just another thought, if you look at Ursula Bio, you'll see she grew up in Berkeley, California. Berkeley, is notorious for anti-vietnam protest, and her short story was written in early 70's (Towards the end of Vietnam War, American Pull out in 73-75). Is it possible that she is using The child as a symbolism for american G.I. The United States would fall without a military, you know about the american G.I how they were treated, but what can you do? nothing..... they were drafted.
Well OBVIOUSLY you don't save the boy. Would you kill one person to save 100?... Yes, and if you were too proud to kill the one person to prevent 100 people from being killed then you're nothing but weak-minded, and cruel towards all of those who would die. If one boy suffering means the rest of the world living in peace in harmony then OF COURSE you make the boy suffer. Hell, I would volunteer to be the boy if I had to. There are things more important than one person, like millions of people.
@SciMethodFTW WTF? Are you kidding me? You would sacrifice one person, against their will, to save any number of other people?
That is how absolutely disgusting our society has become. A hundred years ago, if you even asked that question you would have been tarred and feathered and thrown out of town. How absolutely disgusting.
Thinking like this is what allowed the Nazis to justify murdering Jews and all the other ethnic/religious groups they slaughtered. You disgust me.
@barwick11 You aren't thinking about the situation logically, and are instead allowing your emotions to cloud your judgement. Yes, killing someone is bad in itself, but if you know that by killing them you prevent the deaths of others then it is a good deed. The net result is the prevention of death, which is a good thing.
@SciMethodFTW Logically? Ok hotshot, listen to this logic:
Let's say in theory if we kill you, science can create a cure for hangnails. Government decides that this is worth the sacrifice, and sends the "Civil Defense Corps" to come arrest you and take you to the laboratory. Within 2 hours you are murdered and they create the cure for hangnails. Hangnails are a thing of the past. *phew* How fortunate we are to have such a great society that can pick who lives and dies. Say hi to Goebbels...
@barwick11 No.... that would not be logical. It would not be logical because hangnails are not something that kill people or cause serious harm to society. If, on the other hand, them killing me would cure cancer I would happily sacrifice myself because I'm not selfish, and don't think my life is particularly more important than everyone else's.
If a murderer were about to kill someone, would you kill that murderer? It's against the wishes of the murderer to die, and yet you would still kill him. It just doesn't matter if the person wants to die or not. What really matters is the end result. Then you say "well the murderer is CHOSING to murder". No, the murderer never chose to be given a brain predisposed to murder. There is no choice in the matter, but that still won't stop me from stopping him.
@SciMethodFTW Are you serious? What "non-civilization" did you grow up in? You're comparing sacrificing an innocent child to stopping a murderer from killing someone?
It's real simple: Societies exist to preserve people's rights. A person has an unalienable right to life. Rights can only be taken away by a society when a person has purposely taken someone else's rights. In other words, if you murder (or attempt to murder) someone, you forfeit your right to life.
Your analogy to the US and China isn't even close to what Le Guin was saying. The US and China are willing partners, both benefit from trade. If we stopped buying from "Sock City", the people living there would suffer.
The question isn't "would you stay or would you go", it's "Would you help that little child?"
How sad as a society have we become that we would even for a moment consider allowing one person to suffer for the "greater good" of everyone else? The Nazis thought that way.
@barwick11 you are not on the same page as what he is talking about. you r correct about both countries benefiting from trade. however, LastPriority is talking about all those chinese workers that have very little choice which are making those socks for others to enjoy them. they are suffering while the users enjoy. if the workers stop making the socks, the users cant enjoy the socks anymore. and it isn't would u help the child.Le Guin is talking about a utilitarian idea vs a kantian idea.
@royal69 Neither I (or I presume yourself) are an expert on Chinese economics. Whether they have the choice or not (I believe they do, you would have to provide evidence that they do not) does not change the fact that their productivity there in "sock city" producing socks raises their standard of living by the number of socks we buy from them.
If we were to stop purchasing from them, you tell me what they would do to provide a more-than-primitive standard of living for themselves.
I read this story last night. I would take your third option of rescuing the boy, walking away from the city with him; caring for him fully for the rest of his life. For me, no person's suffering is worth my happiness as I could feel no true joy. As for the happiness of others, let them make their own happiness, not dependent on another person's suffering. How can that be true happiness? I would feel happier facing the lower society and helping; not walking away; not staying.
@Jennifer770 You are a good person. The best compliment I have ever gotten was someone told me I have a really old soul. I believe that you have beaten me on this one. Your soul is even older and wiser.
The story reminds me of an old puzzle, whose answer tells something about the answerer. Imagine 2 men: a rich man who never gives anyone anything for free, & a poor man starving in the street. You've given the poor man everything you own: not enough. You begged the rich man: "Give"; he wouldn't. One day (now poor yourself), you find a loaded gun. Is it OK to take the gun & tell the rich man: "Give to my poor neighbor, or I shoot you?" (And does the answer change if guns are legal where you are?)
I think because this society is happiness, the boy represents unhappiness which will cause the whole society to head into that direction. I feel pitty for the boy but when I think about the whole society, there's even more boys like the one in the small room. So to me, it's better to allow one suffer for the whole society than for the whole society to suffer for nothing. Because even if the boy is being save, he won't truly be saved, he will die as well.
i read this in my senior year short stories class, its a very interesting story and very sad. im surprised no one helps him in the story, and the utopia's structure crumbles. i sometimes wonder and ask, what happens if the boy dies? does he ever die? or does someone take his place?
@TheRedDash well, I believe that they would replace the boy if something happend to him because, according to the story, the child remembers sunlight and its mother's voice.
If the people of omelas do not have greed, then saving the boy isn't an option. To save the boy is to put your own interests first and to disregard what the others of Omelas want. Allowing you sense of guilt to take over and make a decision over hundreds of others is wrong. Thus it is wrong to save the boy. Omelas is a utopia, but it isn't a place of happiness. Couldn't it be possible just to save the boy and work towards a better society? A society that doesn't have restricted freedoms...
I like your comment. I do have to say that if emotions did disappear it would have to be the negative ones like greed, but I don't think that greed is the proper emotion invoked by the presence of the boy. I would have to say that it is compassion. I would not consider compassion to be a negative emotion, and it would be the people that feel greater compassion for the boy over their personal happiness that save the boy. Maybe not though.
the people who have a "greater compassion for the boy over their personal happiness that save the boy" are then disregarded the happiness the the other Omelans want. I just did an finals essay on this story and ended with what you got too though. The unimaginable society is probably one without this need of compassion (or could it be pity?) for something lesser then ourselves. It would be a society of equality, but it probably is impossible due to our human nature.
1st the writer is horrible-way too many adjectives however society needs a lower class to sustain us ex, garbage men-But the ones who walked away are the better. WE need those kinds of professions to keep a social classes standards happy.
To answer your question, I would not walk away, why,because I'm AMERICAN, WE are Capitalists. And that's why we are huge debt, loss our 401 savings,fell behind in education, and pay outrages medical bills....because we do NOT want to walk away.
You are stuck in a one track thought process of, "This is the way things are are they should not change." The point of the story is not only to bring this idea of living off the lower classes so that we can have a better life but to make you think about a better way. Is there a better way? I don't know because if there was we would have moved into that way of life over capitalism.
Your example of garbage men is not a good example because they are paid very well and capitalism made it that way
The bigger idea is about globalization. The fact that we live off the poverty of other nations to keep ours as the most powerful. Is that moral? So your garbage men live in the powerful country so they live in the city and depend on the boy. People will take and unsatisfactory job if paid enough in America. It is the unwilling that are forced to work for an unsatisfactory wage that the boy should be compared to.
Your belief is unfounded and ignorant. The author believes that the ones who walk away MIGHT find a better society, though it is "unimaginable"
Remember what OUR nation is founded on: The Declaration Of Independence " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
please do not pin your beliefs on every American, they are not mine
I am sorry if I offended you. The question being discussed is, "In the current system we have is it a moral way to live?" I beg you to point out the belief I "tried" to pin on you. I stated a few times I don't know of a better system than the one we have so any belief you have is one you already believe because you are living in the current model for society, unless you live in another country. Which I am assuming you don't based on your comments about the declaration of independence.
and as for what i'd do? i think i would be one of the ones who would walk away.. but who really knows, maybe like the rest i would find some reason to justify the treatment of the child- the sacrifice of one for the benefit of many.
Omelas is supposed to by a utopia. You can see as she goes on the story she starts using the conditionnel tense " I think it would be ..." so you can see she is describing it in her own terms, as she would visualize a utopia. I like the quote you brought up because she really emphasizes how most consider happiness as something rather stupid and simple. But then later in the story you learn that the citizens of Omelas are not ignorant and irresponsibly happy. They know what they sacrifice.
Omelas is Salem O[regon] spelt backwords, Le Guin explains that she gets her inspiration by reading road signs backwards.. there are many clues through out the text that she intends Omelas to be America.. and the child is third-world countries.
This story has another way of interpretation, and that is Jesus. the little boy that suffers is Jesus, that came and died. the people in this city that stay are the people that don't appreciate the scarifies Jesus (the boy) made. The people leaving are going towards that better place, the bible tells I believe called the holy city. I see it this way. I am actually writing an essay on this point of view for my english class. Thank for your opinion, and for posting it, very helpful.
I have to read this, and other short stories for a summer book report. So far, I think I would enjoy this the most. If any of you are interested, I'll list what I like from best to least (all the stories I have to read).
1. The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
2. The Story of an Hour
3. The Yellow Wallpaper
4. The Minister's Black Veil
5. The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson
I haven't read the Minister's Black Veil or The Lottery yet, but I have read summaries.
Y en el final, cuando habla de el otro rumbo al que se dirigen los que abandonan Omelas, implica que si es una ciudad aún mejor, una sociedad todavái más perfecta a simple vista, le horror que esconde es todavía más grande que lo que se esconde en Omelas...
Y en La mano izquierda de la Oscuridad deice: "La oscuridad es la mano izquierda de la luz"
Los dualismos siempre están presentes en la obra de Le Guin. Y en Omelas el mensaje es todavía mayor. Toda la sociedad de Omelas está basada en el sufrimiento. Siempre hay algo malo en todo lo bueno. Nada es perfecto
As the happiness and on going stability of the many is predicated upon the misery of one, which of us would impose our morality on the many. It might be moral and ethical from an individual view, but would it be ethical from a societal viewpoint? And would it be democratic? Which of us would uphold our humanism at the cost of undemocratically imposing widespread misery upon society.
This story is about personal ethics and the tension between the individual and society. The ethical decision for me and many others would be to walk away from Omelas. Maybe we walk away not knowing where we are bound, but we retain our ethical freedom, the moral power of choice by rejecting the social basis of our happiness being dependant on the exploitation and misery of another.
It's not an abstract concept. The reason you type on this computer is because some child was murdered for oil and other resources. Some child had legs blown off or watched as their parents were shot down. Some child had home and family blown to bits by bombs dropped from jets, so that Halliburton and Exxon will turn a year end profit.
This is not abstract. Resources are finite. The population grows. people are murdered for what's left so you can type on this computer.
Have you thought of applying this idea to terrorism today? What if one person was doomed to torture for the rest of his/her life so that the world would be terror free? I'd let him or her suffer.
That is an excellent comparison but i would still have to go the route of there must be a better way. It is tempting though... no terrorism for the suffering of one.
You are quick to say that you'd let that person suffer to end terrorism in the world...the question is, would you be brave enough to endure this torture for the rest of your life to end it?
I can see where you are coming from... the little child = jesus and the city = humanity. The boy having saved the city from all their sins to live in happiness. I am an agnostic though so I usually don't see things in that way. Good eye and thanks for the different perspective.
I am very into mathematics and was wondering what kind of math you are doing?
In another vein, if I were to interpret your synopsis so, this could also be a Jesus tale. I am doing math right now, and I probably do not have the space in a comment to explain, but I would like to. So, when I get some free time, maybe tomorrow afternoon after classes, I would like to read the story, see if I can make a case , and tell you why I caught this(if you don't already know).
China can not be a suffering boy of Omelas, no China nor any other developing country, rather these Third or Tenth World's countries will make Western countries a very very suffering boys and girls of Omelas in a very near future! Ha-Ha-Ha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
saskian100 1 month ago
Even though it would be hard to know about the kid and the circumstances he is in, I think rescuing the kid from that suffering would be egoistic from my part. See, I would feel good about rescuing the kid and even get recognition for being courageous, but by doing that, Im pretty much sacrificing the people's happiness (perfect word/city) Yes, one kid is not going to suffer anymore, but how many more people are going to suffer after that? Im not trying to be mean with the kid thou...
MrPanchog95 4 months ago
After watching how the Penn State students reacted I was reminded of this story.
Deepdesert 4 months ago
great video.
LoriStories 4 months ago
I had to read this story for one of my classes at school and I really couldn't understand it all that well, but then I saw your video and I was like "Oh! Okay now I get it." So thank you so much and I enjoyed watching this video. :)
SuperHugs4free 4 months ago
I would definitely Rescue Him...AftEr All true happiness comes within not without!!There would be no way i would be able to stare him in the eyes and continue living as if nothing i observed was normal!!But i appreciate you breaking down the story too...You made it a little more clearer for me!!
LoVeDWiThouTliMitZ 4 months ago
Tis story should be an eye opener for all of us.
createdforHIM5 5 months ago
save the boy everybody can be unhappy but i would take care of him and everybody should be equal! Thanks for this video it really helped on my homework!
peaceloveharmonyful 5 months ago
thanks man your awesome
Gothmog713 5 months ago
In fact a LOT of what we believe about rewards, punishment, what we deserve, what motivates us, makes us feel good about ourselves, etc...is all in our heads. The truth is that WE KNOW HOW to help people, and there is more than enough resources to clean up inner cities, to stop human traffiking, to raise mentally whole and healthy people, etc. But we are afraid. We would rather be comfortable and blame it on something beyond our control. My hope is that someday we will become better people.
florydory 6 months ago
Comment removed
florydory 6 months ago
I think that the answer lies in overcoming our cognitive fallacies. In another story, a man contracts with laborers to work in his field for a certain price. Over the course of the day, the man invites others to join in. At the end of the day, the man pays all the laborers the same amount of money (even tho some had worked 10 hrs and others worked 1). Comparing themselves to others, the first laborers are angry...but if noone had come along, they would have been fine. Happiness is in our head.
florydory 6 months ago
The chid...
It looks about six, but actually is nearly ten. It is feeble-minded. Perhaps it was born defective or perhaps it has become imbecile through fear, malnutrition, and neglect. It picks its nose and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals,
mpreilly 6 months ago
@mpreilly
It picks its nose and occasionally fumbles vaguely with its toes or genitals, as it sits haunched in the corner farthest from the bucket and the two mops. It is afraid of the mops. It finds them horrible. It shuts its eyes, but it knows the mops are still standing there; and the door is locked; and nobody will come.
mpreilly 6 months ago
@Jennifer770 Then maybe you should become a teacher in a developing country.
joeatgvo 8 months ago
Those who walk away has reached "enlightenment"
anythingnew 10 months ago
The monetary system is Omelas.
anythingnew 10 months ago
You started this in 2006 and here it is 2011 and I am watching it! Thank you so much for your video - it really helped me understand the writing. I have to comment on it for my Abnormal Psych Class. I have been out of school for many years so it is nice to hear a young person comment and get this old brain thinking!
fibrebird20 11 months ago 2
I can see why you said we have to take care of the boy for the rest of his life (b/c that would signify our lack of selfishness) BUT can we take him to an assisted living center...you know what i guess not because that would also prove the author's theory on how we leave responsibility to others.
thanks for the ?
johnwaynepresley 11 months ago
The particular part in this story that hasn't been repeated much (that I've seen) is this quote. "The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting." This is astoundingly true, and I often wonder why is it that Heaven sounds so boring from what I hear.
Thanotubis 11 months ago
The story was absolute crap! Basically she stole the idea of jesus suffering to save mankind's souls. I laugh at all the people who act like they would save the little boy as if they themself are so humane. The only person who wins in the story is the suffering little boy because their is no happy without sad and their is no love without hate. Anoyone in this town wouldnt know how to be happy without knowing suffering. They are all just lost emotionless souls.
DrunkinHulk 1 year ago
thanks for the video. it really helped me get a grasp on the story and a better understanding. i would help the boy. no one should have to suffer for the happiness of others
leahstringer87 1 year ago
You have nice teeth :D
RednYellowLAZERs 1 year ago
I have an essay for my final exam this week that has to be about this story. I was struggling with it a little and this really helped me out. Thank you!
aznssaywhaat 1 year ago
Theres no such thing as utopia - thats the point of the story - Omelas is not a utopia they all have to live with the knowledge of the childs suffering, pain, and the responsibilty they have to do this just like all of us must live with our own pain, suffering, and responsiblity - Some choose not to look at it - Others do - But they all rashonalise it just like we all do - we need to its human if we don't we can't go on - those that can't go on leave Omelas
Marroz888 1 year ago
Get ready for your minds to be blown Omelas is life - The boy is the suffering in everybody - You either accept the suffering and learn to appreciate life and make the most of what you have - or decide you can't live with it leave Omelas in other words leave life and kill your self - The Boy isn't real hes a metaphor you can't save him hes ten and yet people who are forty in Omelas saw him when they were young - They learn of pain and suffering when they are old enough to understand justlikewedo
Marroz888 1 year ago
@Marroz888 I think his explanation in the video is more accurate . Because the author actually seems to value those who decide to leave Omelas.
oralyon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 was an inside job
ThatOneGuy831 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
9/11 was an inside job
ThatOneGuy831 1 year ago
I don't think it's just a metaphor for society. It's a metaphor for a state of mind. The ones who walk away from Omelas are moving toward a different mindset, one where your happiness isn't worth the suffering of another. Saying it might not exist means people might not be able to truly think that way.
TharosTheDragon 1 year ago
I didn't read all the comments, so this may have come up before. I'd like to add an additional condition to rescuing the boy. Once you rescue him, the city would just replace him with someone else.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
You saved alot of time for me from re-reading. Thanks for the good summary and analyzing the quotes (which I probably will not remember when it's time for discussion in the class). I guess you can say the symbol in this story is the little boy who is trapped in. I believe the city is Utopia?? Anywho, thanks for the summary.
lones02 1 year ago
Just another thought, if you look at Ursula Bio, you'll see she grew up in Berkeley, California. Berkeley, is notorious for anti-vietnam protest, and her short story was written in early 70's (Towards the end of Vietnam War, American Pull out in 73-75). Is it possible that she is using The child as a symbolism for american G.I. The United States would fall without a military, you know about the american G.I how they were treated, but what can you do? nothing..... they were drafted.
paddox64 1 year ago
Well OBVIOUSLY you don't save the boy. Would you kill one person to save 100?... Yes, and if you were too proud to kill the one person to prevent 100 people from being killed then you're nothing but weak-minded, and cruel towards all of those who would die. If one boy suffering means the rest of the world living in peace in harmony then OF COURSE you make the boy suffer. Hell, I would volunteer to be the boy if I had to. There are things more important than one person, like millions of people.
SciMethodFTW 1 year ago
@SciMethodFTW WTF? Are you kidding me? You would sacrifice one person, against their will, to save any number of other people?
That is how absolutely disgusting our society has become. A hundred years ago, if you even asked that question you would have been tarred and feathered and thrown out of town. How absolutely disgusting.
Thinking like this is what allowed the Nazis to justify murdering Jews and all the other ethnic/religious groups they slaughtered. You disgust me.
barwick11 1 year ago
@barwick11 You aren't thinking about the situation logically, and are instead allowing your emotions to cloud your judgement. Yes, killing someone is bad in itself, but if you know that by killing them you prevent the deaths of others then it is a good deed. The net result is the prevention of death, which is a good thing.
SciMethodFTW 1 year ago
@SciMethodFTW Logically? Ok hotshot, listen to this logic:
Let's say in theory if we kill you, science can create a cure for hangnails. Government decides that this is worth the sacrifice, and sends the "Civil Defense Corps" to come arrest you and take you to the laboratory. Within 2 hours you are murdered and they create the cure for hangnails. Hangnails are a thing of the past. *phew* How fortunate we are to have such a great society that can pick who lives and dies. Say hi to Goebbels...
barwick11 1 year ago
@barwick11 No.... that would not be logical. It would not be logical because hangnails are not something that kill people or cause serious harm to society. If, on the other hand, them killing me would cure cancer I would happily sacrifice myself because I'm not selfish, and don't think my life is particularly more important than everyone else's.
SciMethodFTW 1 year ago
@SciMethodFTW Well that's all well and good there chief, your life is yours to choose what to do with.
That child's life isn't.
Plain and simple.
No matter if killing that child would save one life or six billion, it is not up to YOU to decide if that child lives or dies.
Do you have children?
barwick11 1 year ago
@barwick11 Why isn't it up to me?
If a murderer were about to kill someone, would you kill that murderer? It's against the wishes of the murderer to die, and yet you would still kill him. It just doesn't matter if the person wants to die or not. What really matters is the end result. Then you say "well the murderer is CHOSING to murder". No, the murderer never chose to be given a brain predisposed to murder. There is no choice in the matter, but that still won't stop me from stopping him.
SciMethodFTW 1 year ago
@SciMethodFTW Are you serious? What "non-civilization" did you grow up in? You're comparing sacrificing an innocent child to stopping a murderer from killing someone?
It's real simple: Societies exist to preserve people's rights. A person has an unalienable right to life. Rights can only be taken away by a society when a person has purposely taken someone else's rights. In other words, if you murder (or attempt to murder) someone, you forfeit your right to life.
barwick11 1 year ago
Your analogy to the US and China isn't even close to what Le Guin was saying. The US and China are willing partners, both benefit from trade. If we stopped buying from "Sock City", the people living there would suffer.
The question isn't "would you stay or would you go", it's "Would you help that little child?"
How sad as a society have we become that we would even for a moment consider allowing one person to suffer for the "greater good" of everyone else? The Nazis thought that way.
barwick11 1 year ago
@barwick11 you are not on the same page as what he is talking about. you r correct about both countries benefiting from trade. however, LastPriority is talking about all those chinese workers that have very little choice which are making those socks for others to enjoy them. they are suffering while the users enjoy. if the workers stop making the socks, the users cant enjoy the socks anymore. and it isn't would u help the child.Le Guin is talking about a utilitarian idea vs a kantian idea.
royal69 1 year ago
@royal69 Neither I (or I presume yourself) are an expert on Chinese economics. Whether they have the choice or not (I believe they do, you would have to provide evidence that they do not) does not change the fact that their productivity there in "sock city" producing socks raises their standard of living by the number of socks we buy from them.
If we were to stop purchasing from them, you tell me what they would do to provide a more-than-primitive standard of living for themselves.
barwick11 1 year ago
I love the way you explained the story :)
amreenofficial 1 year ago
"if it hurts, repeat it"
InkBleedsDeeper 1 year ago
I read this story last night. I would take your third option of rescuing the boy, walking away from the city with him; caring for him fully for the rest of his life. For me, no person's suffering is worth my happiness as I could feel no true joy. As for the happiness of others, let them make their own happiness, not dependent on another person's suffering. How can that be true happiness? I would feel happier facing the lower society and helping; not walking away; not staying.
Jennifer770 2 years ago 3
@Jennifer770 You are a good person. The best compliment I have ever gotten was someone told me I have a really old soul. I believe that you have beaten me on this one. Your soul is even older and wiser.
LastPriority 1 year ago
The story reminds me of an old puzzle, whose answer tells something about the answerer. Imagine 2 men: a rich man who never gives anyone anything for free, & a poor man starving in the street. You've given the poor man everything you own: not enough. You begged the rich man: "Give"; he wouldn't. One day (now poor yourself), you find a loaded gun. Is it OK to take the gun & tell the rich man: "Give to my poor neighbor, or I shoot you?" (And does the answer change if guns are legal where you are?)
KateGladstone 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jennifer770 @Jennifer770 Then maybe you should become a teacher in a developing country.
joeatgvo 8 months ago
I think because this society is happiness, the boy represents unhappiness which will cause the whole society to head into that direction. I feel pitty for the boy but when I think about the whole society, there's even more boys like the one in the small room. So to me, it's better to allow one suffer for the whole society than for the whole society to suffer for nothing. Because even if the boy is being save, he won't truly be saved, he will die as well.
jUXmOi 2 years ago
i read this in my senior year short stories class, its a very interesting story and very sad. im surprised no one helps him in the story, and the utopia's structure crumbles. i sometimes wonder and ask, what happens if the boy dies? does he ever die? or does someone take his place?
TheRedDash 2 years ago
@TheRedDash well, I believe that they would replace the boy if something happend to him because, according to the story, the child remembers sunlight and its mother's voice.
trueaznlover16 2 years ago
Wow, thanks alot. This really helped my understanding of the story
whatamaze 2 years ago
If the people of omelas do not have greed, then saving the boy isn't an option. To save the boy is to put your own interests first and to disregard what the others of Omelas want. Allowing you sense of guilt to take over and make a decision over hundreds of others is wrong. Thus it is wrong to save the boy. Omelas is a utopia, but it isn't a place of happiness. Couldn't it be possible just to save the boy and work towards a better society? A society that doesn't have restricted freedoms...
prarieboarding 2 years ago
I like your comment. I do have to say that if emotions did disappear it would have to be the negative ones like greed, but I don't think that greed is the proper emotion invoked by the presence of the boy. I would have to say that it is compassion. I would not consider compassion to be a negative emotion, and it would be the people that feel greater compassion for the boy over their personal happiness that save the boy. Maybe not though.
LastPriority 2 years ago
It is those that think it is possible to save the boy and work towards a better society that think there is a better way the whole argument here.
LastPriority 2 years ago
the people who have a "greater compassion for the boy over their personal happiness that save the boy" are then disregarded the happiness the the other Omelans want. I just did an finals essay on this story and ended with what you got too though. The unimaginable society is probably one without this need of compassion (or could it be pity?) for something lesser then ourselves. It would be a society of equality, but it probably is impossible due to our human nature.
prarieboarding 2 years ago
Glad to have another input... hard to believe this started in 2006 and i still get comments on this video.
LastPriority 2 years ago
i loved that story..it was really i dont know ....it makes you think alot about our society...
xiomararbdrebels 2 years ago
1st the writer is horrible-way too many adjectives however society needs a lower class to sustain us ex, garbage men-But the ones who walked away are the better. WE need those kinds of professions to keep a social classes standards happy.
To answer your question, I would not walk away, why,because I'm AMERICAN, WE are Capitalists. And that's why we are huge debt, loss our 401 savings,fell behind in education, and pay outrages medical bills....because we do NOT want to walk away.
ldballoon4 2 years ago
You are stuck in a one track thought process of, "This is the way things are are they should not change." The point of the story is not only to bring this idea of living off the lower classes so that we can have a better life but to make you think about a better way. Is there a better way? I don't know because if there was we would have moved into that way of life over capitalism.
Your example of garbage men is not a good example because they are paid very well and capitalism made it that way
LastPriority 2 years ago
The bigger idea is about globalization. The fact that we live off the poverty of other nations to keep ours as the most powerful. Is that moral? So your garbage men live in the powerful country so they live in the city and depend on the boy. People will take and unsatisfactory job if paid enough in America. It is the unwilling that are forced to work for an unsatisfactory wage that the boy should be compared to.
LastPriority 2 years ago
Your belief is unfounded and ignorant. The author believes that the ones who walk away MIGHT find a better society, though it is "unimaginable"
Remember what OUR nation is founded on: The Declaration Of Independence " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
please do not pin your beliefs on every American, they are not mine
rking87 2 years ago
I am sorry if I offended you. The question being discussed is, "In the current system we have is it a moral way to live?" I beg you to point out the belief I "tried" to pin on you. I stated a few times I don't know of a better system than the one we have so any belief you have is one you already believe because you are living in the current model for society, unless you live in another country. Which I am assuming you don't based on your comments about the declaration of independence.
LastPriority 2 years ago
As for your second paragraph about what our nation was founded on there is no doubt about that. What I would question is are we all TREATED equal?
LastPriority 2 years ago
I would stay because i'm lassy : P.
In other issue, i think u realllyyyyy need to read a little bit less and focus on having more sex, u look trouble mmm : (
Relusiten 2 years ago
"man that guy is hot!"
tbenson417 2 years ago
and as for what i'd do? i think i would be one of the ones who would walk away.. but who really knows, maybe like the rest i would find some reason to justify the treatment of the child- the sacrifice of one for the benefit of many.
carrottop440 2 years ago
Omelas is supposed to by a utopia. You can see as she goes on the story she starts using the conditionnel tense " I think it would be ..." so you can see she is describing it in her own terms, as she would visualize a utopia. I like the quote you brought up because she really emphasizes how most consider happiness as something rather stupid and simple. But then later in the story you learn that the citizens of Omelas are not ignorant and irresponsibly happy. They know what they sacrifice.
carrottop440 2 years ago
Omelas is Salem O[regon] spelt backwords, Le Guin explains that she gets her inspiration by reading road signs backwards.. there are many clues through out the text that she intends Omelas to be America.. and the child is third-world countries.
katrina2588 2 years ago
This story has another way of interpretation, and that is Jesus. the little boy that suffers is Jesus, that came and died. the people in this city that stay are the people that don't appreciate the scarifies Jesus (the boy) made. The people leaving are going towards that better place, the bible tells I believe called the holy city. I see it this way. I am actually writing an essay on this point of view for my english class. Thank for your opinion, and for posting it, very helpful.
jevitarica 3 years ago
Ursula K. Le Guin is an atheist, so I doubt she would not have wanted her story to be interpreted that way.
katrina2588 2 years ago 2
You should read Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality
cmmndrblu 3 years ago
i just read this story for my summer homework, but i didn't fully understand it. this video is exactly what i needed so thanks!
zerenthead 3 years ago
I have to read this, and other short stories for a summer book report. So far, I think I would enjoy this the most. If any of you are interested, I'll list what I like from best to least (all the stories I have to read).
1. The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
2. The Story of an Hour
3. The Yellow Wallpaper
4. The Minister's Black Veil
5. The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson
I haven't read the Minister's Black Veil or The Lottery yet, but I have read summaries.
TxJamesxT 3 years ago
BCA?
iMthatFILIPINOkid 2 years ago
Ya. Why? You an incoming freshman?
TxJamesxT 2 years ago
I agree. Most of us don´t have the courage.
tonamoreno 3 years ago
Y en el final, cuando habla de el otro rumbo al que se dirigen los que abandonan Omelas, implica que si es una ciudad aún mejor, una sociedad todavái más perfecta a simple vista, le horror que esconde es todavía más grande que lo que se esconde en Omelas...
Ese es mi punto de vista...
MaoUmli 4 years ago
En Un Mago de Terramar Ursula Le Guin dice:
"Solo en el silencio la palabra,
solo en la oscuridad la luz,
solo en la muerte la vida,
el vuelo del halcón brilla en el cielo vacío"
Y en La mano izquierda de la Oscuridad deice: "La oscuridad es la mano izquierda de la luz"
Los dualismos siempre están presentes en la obra de Le Guin. Y en Omelas el mensaje es todavía mayor. Toda la sociedad de Omelas está basada en el sufrimiento. Siempre hay algo malo en todo lo bueno. Nada es perfecto
MaoUmli 4 years ago
i don't. i think i would enjoy the beautiful nudes that walk around offering their flesh. mmmmmmm
hot chicks.
soffer 4 years ago
As the happiness and on going stability of the many is predicated upon the misery of one, which of us would impose our morality on the many. It might be moral and ethical from an individual view, but would it be ethical from a societal viewpoint? And would it be democratic? Which of us would uphold our humanism at the cost of undemocratically imposing widespread misery upon society.
takvera 4 years ago
This story is about personal ethics and the tension between the individual and society. The ethical decision for me and many others would be to walk away from Omelas. Maybe we walk away not knowing where we are bound, but we retain our ethical freedom, the moral power of choice by rejecting the social basis of our happiness being dependant on the exploitation and misery of another.
takvera 4 years ago
It's not an abstract concept. The reason you type on this computer is because some child was murdered for oil and other resources. Some child had legs blown off or watched as their parents were shot down. Some child had home and family blown to bits by bombs dropped from jets, so that Halliburton and Exxon will turn a year end profit.
This is not abstract. Resources are finite. The population grows. people are murdered for what's left so you can type on this computer.
queerplanet 5 years ago
I agree with you.
tonamoreno 3 years ago
Would you mind saying whether this was serious or sarcastic? I really hope it was sarcasm.
KillerBs34 3 years ago
Have you thought of applying this idea to terrorism today? What if one person was doomed to torture for the rest of his/her life so that the world would be terror free? I'd let him or her suffer.
samham09 5 years ago
That is an excellent comparison but i would still have to go the route of there must be a better way. It is tempting though... no terrorism for the suffering of one.
LastPriority 5 years ago
Even if him or her were you?
tonamoreno 3 years ago
Not me of course. My life is far too precious, but say someone like Pauly Shore. I'd let her endure the sufferings of the world.
samham09 3 years ago
You are quick to say that you'd let that person suffer to end terrorism in the world...the question is, would you be brave enough to endure this torture for the rest of your life to end it?
NCsFinest07 3 years ago
There is another way, and there is a better place.
Whiteyw12 5 years ago
That's cool that you can see where I am coming from as an agnostic, and yeah, that's where I was going.
I'm taking algebra right now. This chapter is on rational expressions of the form p/q| qdoes not = 0. Lot's of variables and factoring formulas etc.
LordLargo37 5 years ago
I can see where you are coming from... the little child = jesus and the city = humanity. The boy having saved the city from all their sins to live in happiness. I am an agnostic though so I usually don't see things in that way. Good eye and thanks for the different perspective.
I am very into mathematics and was wondering what kind of math you are doing?
LastPriority 5 years ago
In another vein, if I were to interpret your synopsis so, this could also be a Jesus tale. I am doing math right now, and I probably do not have the space in a comment to explain, but I would like to. So, when I get some free time, maybe tomorrow afternoon after classes, I would like to read the story, see if I can make a case , and tell you why I caught this(if you don't already know).
LordLargo37 5 years ago
I am not sure if i could live in the city. I don't think it would feel right.
slrove 5 years ago