I have simplistic thinking, my first thought is I would leave Omelas but free the child and take him/her with me. But then the child would just be replaced by another sacrificial lamb to feed the imaginary needs of the compliant crowd. During all of this covid scam the crowds saw safety in the form of increased restrictions and control and when forcibly applied to any resisters they had no concern for the damage and harm it would cause. I find it depressing and I do not want to be part of any collective.
It had to be a myth. It made/makes no sense at all. Just stupid superstition, as useless as all human cultures that have ever engaged in "sacrificing to the gods" anything or anyone. The very idea is nonsensical. How does killing something/someone possibly affect or in any way help or satisfy a "god"? Aren't "gods" supposed to be non-physical or other-dimensional beings? How does any action within this physical manifestation (world) affect something NOT a part of this three-dimensional reality?
So, what is the premise?: that there ARE gods of Omelas and that they want the sacrifice of the child, and because of that sacrifice reward the city and its citizens with good things? OR the entire thing is just made up, a complete myth, as were the beliefs of the Aztecs and their bloody rituals of human sacrifice? . . . in which case rescuing the child would have zero impact on anything about the city or the lives of its inhabitants.
Question: does any part on the story explain its premises? Does the fictional place also HAVE its "gods", OR do the inhabitants just imagine that there are such things as gods or other-worldy influencers that are capable of doing things for their city? Because what effect freeing the child would have depends entirery on the author's parameters for her make-believe world.
There's a Star Trek story along those lines! About a place which appears perfect but the price of that perfection is the suffering of a child - a "Chosen One".
Okay, @Stuffysays, with that info I found the episode in about a minute:
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
S1.E6 ∙ Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach
It was that episode that galvanized my interest in the series (at least for now). I had lost interest in Star Trek after Enterprise ended, as the subsequent incarnations had devolved into a morass of poor storytelling and forced insertion of unrealistic characters and "social justice" garbage.
The "Omelas" short story seems to treat the theme of sacrifice rather superficially (or a bit more praiseworthy, in an open-ended manner). It's almost an inversion of what most philosophers of the time and the Founding Fathers of the USA talked about. Specifically, that sacrifice should be various individual actions by all, a duty, representing the ideals of a society. I can't recall offhand who first said it, though it's likely many of our Founding Fathers alluded to it, but whoever it was said something along the lines of the USA, and its Constitution, only being as strong or effective as the ethics/morality of the people themselves, that the Constitution is only valid/viable for a ethical/moral and just people. There was an article about the Constitution with similar themes posted on the Blaze website yesterday (though it's behind a paywall)...
Thanks again for the pointer to SNW...
P.S. - In other words, when we bemoan the state of our government nowadays, the amount of omni-present corruption, etc., we have no one to blame but ourselves. We can't "go back" to better enforcing the Constitution and various laws. The Constitution and laws are guidelines and a map, of sorts, guidance if you will, and serve a just and moral people well. But, the Consitution and laws can be misused by immoral and unjust people for their own ends...
Such a rich story, good choice. I always come up with probably lame evolutionary hypotheses about these human behaviors, and I sort of trace it back to the stotting of antelopes, how the herd is protected if the elderly or very young at the edge get snatched by the predator. There's a cliff in Kefalonia that, translated from the Greek, is called "little pieces of old people," since at times of scarcity, they were dispensed with. Just as with liberalism and conservatism, we need, I think, both individualism and collectivism, the sacrosanct individual embedded in a neighborhood, a community, a city etc., so these must be held in tension, which doesn't make for a peaceful situation, particularly if you have incredibly monied and powerful nudge units working 24/7 to mindf**k you.
This story has a bit of an allusion to Christ, too, I can't help but think. That despite Christianity mostly being hijacked by empire, that for many, perhaps the bloodied suffering Christ somehow quells their antelope or sacrificial behavior. But I'm just speculating from the outside of faith, so what do I know lol. Off to the Kefalonian cliffs with me lol.
The story is simpleminded as if it was meant for children since it does not represent human beings in all their complexity. The passiveness is repellant and the happiness at the pleasant life is shallow. Even the fear felt by those who saw the imprisoned child was insubstantial as instinctually people feel more than is presented here.
The capacity to respond in a proper, loving and responsible way is in all of us but can be made more courageous and profound with right understanding of who the human person is and was made to become, one made in the image of God. Our capacities are underrated and under exercised and this is not serving us well as individuals or as societies.
We should resolve to become more robust in all aspects, whether habits, morals or interactions. This simplistic story is just a starting point to our much more expansive and muscular heritage that we have at our disposal if we just apply ourselves. The consequences of choosing not to surround us today.
Le Guin was never able to construct enough of a worldview to explain why such a monstrous cruelty was necessary in the first place. It was a thought experiment elevated to short story status.
I never was a great fan of Le Guin and I havent read the novel, I'm afraid. However, the sacrifice of a firstborn child for the good of the family or of that of the city was a common practice in the Middle East at some point (see for instance the Daughter of Jephte). The sacrifice of Iphigenia, in the Greek tradition also. Maybe she had those sacrifices in mind?
Except it's not a sacrifice in that classic sense. It's perpetual agony and the worldview to justify it in the minds of the city's leadership is not presented.
As an allegory for mindless obedience I think it falls flat.
As I said, I found it extremely manipulative and artistically unsatisfying.
But I like my sci-fi to show dilemmas and how an individual or group might take useful action. You know, a guy or gal being shown that basement and exclaiming "what the fuck!" and rescuing the kid forthwith. The people walking away from Omelas were moral and physical cowards.
Christ, who was crucified and died, was resurrected on the third day, suffered for us so that we may have eternal life if we love the creator, the Father, GOD. We were taught sacrificial love, love unto death so that we may all live. That is the story we should all remember as the world has forgotten the answer.
Reminds me of slime molds and bird colonies. When a colony is ready to move on it breaks off two thirds. Likewise, occasionally, colonies of sea birds will splinter up to a third to new grounds.
Society is no different. If there are two ways about something, there will be ardent proponents on both sides.
I hope those who walk away found a New Omela, and have all the same, and even if they are poorer for starting fresh they can look back at the hometown and say "misanthropes".
I don't know that this is about collectivism vs individualism as much as it is about right and wrong, how you determine it and your conviction in that respect. The ones who walk away had a different moral compass where this particular issue was concerned. Not commenting if that was right or wrong, but it was different. And different enough for them to act.
Great analogy, I read Leguin when I was a kid but never drew this particular analogy out of it, I thought it was a more general commentary on people’s hypocrisy and ability to rationalize anything.
If you can, walk away from the herd before you follow it's stampede to who knows what destiny. Only a few can resist the comfort of the herd when it stampedes. No problem to help an individual if they are prepared to be helped, but if they just wish to stampede with herd, so they must do so. Their choice, their destiny. After all, it is a pretty dumb herd but it has a mass to survive.
From skimming the comments, it seems many are unable to see any relevance to the story. I would invite you to meditate on the following phrases: lithium mines, sweatshops. Are these things you bury in your consciousness? Are you prepared to walk away from these things and all the benefits they bring to your life? Remember, the USA is 5% of the human population, but it exploits 25% of the worlds resources.
Perhaps she is muddying the waters between ‘pleasure’ and ‘happiness’? The only real happiness in this highly realistic scenario (realistic as in it is our current reality) is to walk away, which is to invite suffering. James Corbett just wrote an insightful article about this: “You see, "happiness" is one of those words that has strayed so far from its original meaning that we can no longer recognize its roots. In this case, as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) kindly informs us, both the adjective "happy" and the noun "happiness" are derived from the root word "hap," meaning "chance" or "fortune." https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/2024-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness
If nothing else, this demonstrates that a decent, right thinking person is incapable of even beginning to imagine a dichotomy of suffering as dire as truly evil people actually impart on their fellow humans (if indeed these people really are human).
If anyone's interested in the concept of human sacrifice I highly recommend the Martyrmade podcast by Darryl Cooper. He has a 3 part series on this, with much emphasis on the Aztecs, where he actually references the ones who walk away from omelas. The episodes are up on spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6aA7GwsEBqFiBshQ0a9vZu?si=2VFfr6nDROCRMssDppSOzw
I have simplistic thinking, my first thought is I would leave Omelas but free the child and take him/her with me. But then the child would just be replaced by another sacrificial lamb to feed the imaginary needs of the compliant crowd. During all of this covid scam the crowds saw safety in the form of increased restrictions and control and when forcibly applied to any resisters they had no concern for the damage and harm it would cause. I find it depressing and I do not want to be part of any collective.
I feel it too. But we must be. We are human and need some sort of collective to survive. What to do....?
the answer is neither. you let the kid out of the cage, heal the kid's wounds, and maybe society will carry on as before.
maybe omelas' continued collective ecstasy being predicated on one child's suffering was all a myth
It had to be a myth. It made/makes no sense at all. Just stupid superstition, as useless as all human cultures that have ever engaged in "sacrificing to the gods" anything or anyone. The very idea is nonsensical. How does killing something/someone possibly affect or in any way help or satisfy a "god"? Aren't "gods" supposed to be non-physical or other-dimensional beings? How does any action within this physical manifestation (world) affect something NOT a part of this three-dimensional reality?
So, what is the premise?: that there ARE gods of Omelas and that they want the sacrifice of the child, and because of that sacrifice reward the city and its citizens with good things? OR the entire thing is just made up, a complete myth, as were the beliefs of the Aztecs and their bloody rituals of human sacrifice? . . . in which case rescuing the child would have zero impact on anything about the city or the lives of its inhabitants.
Question: does any part on the story explain its premises? Does the fictional place also HAVE its "gods", OR do the inhabitants just imagine that there are such things as gods or other-worldy influencers that are capable of doing things for their city? Because what effect freeing the child would have depends entirery on the author's parameters for her make-believe world.
There's a Star Trek story along those lines! About a place which appears perfect but the price of that perfection is the suffering of a child - a "Chosen One".
@Stuffysays, are you referring to an episode where a child is chosen to be hooked up to act as the "central control/computer" for a society?
Do you recall the exact episode. I searched using "chosen one" and some other variations but couldn't locate the episode. Thanks.
Yes! I think it was a Strange New Worlds episode with Captain Pike but I can't find it either.
Okay, @Stuffysays, with that info I found the episode in about a minute:
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
S1.E6 ∙ Lift Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach
It was that episode that galvanized my interest in the series (at least for now). I had lost interest in Star Trek after Enterprise ended, as the subsequent incarnations had devolved into a morass of poor storytelling and forced insertion of unrealistic characters and "social justice" garbage.
The "Omelas" short story seems to treat the theme of sacrifice rather superficially (or a bit more praiseworthy, in an open-ended manner). It's almost an inversion of what most philosophers of the time and the Founding Fathers of the USA talked about. Specifically, that sacrifice should be various individual actions by all, a duty, representing the ideals of a society. I can't recall offhand who first said it, though it's likely many of our Founding Fathers alluded to it, but whoever it was said something along the lines of the USA, and its Constitution, only being as strong or effective as the ethics/morality of the people themselves, that the Constitution is only valid/viable for a ethical/moral and just people. There was an article about the Constitution with similar themes posted on the Blaze website yesterday (though it's behind a paywall)...
Thanks again for the pointer to SNW...
P.S. - In other words, when we bemoan the state of our government nowadays, the amount of omni-present corruption, etc., we have no one to blame but ourselves. We can't "go back" to better enforcing the Constitution and various laws. The Constitution and laws are guidelines and a map, of sorts, guidance if you will, and serve a just and moral people well. But, the Consitution and laws can be misused by immoral and unjust people for their own ends...
Such a rich story, good choice. I always come up with probably lame evolutionary hypotheses about these human behaviors, and I sort of trace it back to the stotting of antelopes, how the herd is protected if the elderly or very young at the edge get snatched by the predator. There's a cliff in Kefalonia that, translated from the Greek, is called "little pieces of old people," since at times of scarcity, they were dispensed with. Just as with liberalism and conservatism, we need, I think, both individualism and collectivism, the sacrosanct individual embedded in a neighborhood, a community, a city etc., so these must be held in tension, which doesn't make for a peaceful situation, particularly if you have incredibly monied and powerful nudge units working 24/7 to mindf**k you.
This story has a bit of an allusion to Christ, too, I can't help but think. That despite Christianity mostly being hijacked by empire, that for many, perhaps the bloodied suffering Christ somehow quells their antelope or sacrificial behavior. But I'm just speculating from the outside of faith, so what do I know lol. Off to the Kefalonian cliffs with me lol.
The story is simpleminded as if it was meant for children since it does not represent human beings in all their complexity. The passiveness is repellant and the happiness at the pleasant life is shallow. Even the fear felt by those who saw the imprisoned child was insubstantial as instinctually people feel more than is presented here.
The capacity to respond in a proper, loving and responsible way is in all of us but can be made more courageous and profound with right understanding of who the human person is and was made to become, one made in the image of God. Our capacities are underrated and under exercised and this is not serving us well as individuals or as societies.
We should resolve to become more robust in all aspects, whether habits, morals or interactions. This simplistic story is just a starting point to our much more expansive and muscular heritage that we have at our disposal if we just apply ourselves. The consequences of choosing not to surround us today.
I've always thought it was an excruciatingly ludicrous story and deeply manipulative for no useful philosophical purpose.
A human community that would commit such a crime is not a really human community. It's a monstrous utilitarian mass.
Le Guin was never able to construct enough of a worldview to explain why such a monstrous cruelty was necessary in the first place. It was a thought experiment elevated to short story status.
I never was a great fan of Le Guin and I havent read the novel, I'm afraid. However, the sacrifice of a firstborn child for the good of the family or of that of the city was a common practice in the Middle East at some point (see for instance the Daughter of Jephte). The sacrifice of Iphigenia, in the Greek tradition also. Maybe she had those sacrifices in mind?
Except it's not a sacrifice in that classic sense. It's perpetual agony and the worldview to justify it in the minds of the city's leadership is not presented.
As an allegory for mindless obedience I think it falls flat.
It doesn't look like an interesting read at all...
As I said, I found it extremely manipulative and artistically unsatisfying.
But I like my sci-fi to show dilemmas and how an individual or group might take useful action. You know, a guy or gal being shown that basement and exclaiming "what the fuck!" and rescuing the kid forthwith. The people walking away from Omelas were moral and physical cowards.
I haven't read it but this is pretty much what I was thinking reading the summary.
Christ, who was crucified and died, was resurrected on the third day, suffered for us so that we may have eternal life if we love the creator, the Father, GOD. We were taught sacrificial love, love unto death so that we may all live. That is the story we should all remember as the world has forgotten the answer.
And he did it willingly, not under duress!
Reminds me of slime molds and bird colonies. When a colony is ready to move on it breaks off two thirds. Likewise, occasionally, colonies of sea birds will splinter up to a third to new grounds.
Society is no different. If there are two ways about something, there will be ardent proponents on both sides.
I hope those who walk away found a New Omela, and have all the same, and even if they are poorer for starting fresh they can look back at the hometown and say "misanthropes".
I don't know that this is about collectivism vs individualism as much as it is about right and wrong, how you determine it and your conviction in that respect. The ones who walk away had a different moral compass where this particular issue was concerned. Not commenting if that was right or wrong, but it was different. And different enough for them to act.
Great analogy, I read Leguin when I was a kid but never drew this particular analogy out of it, I thought it was a more general commentary on people’s hypocrisy and ability to rationalize anything.
If you can, walk away from the herd before you follow it's stampede to who knows what destiny. Only a few can resist the comfort of the herd when it stampedes. No problem to help an individual if they are prepared to be helped, but if they just wish to stampede with herd, so they must do so. Their choice, their destiny. After all, it is a pretty dumb herd but it has a mass to survive.
From skimming the comments, it seems many are unable to see any relevance to the story. I would invite you to meditate on the following phrases: lithium mines, sweatshops. Are these things you bury in your consciousness? Are you prepared to walk away from these things and all the benefits they bring to your life? Remember, the USA is 5% of the human population, but it exploits 25% of the worlds resources.
That Sparknotes summary is longer than the story. Sheesh.
I now know who the medical-facists are . . if they try that again they will be swiftly dealt with . .
Perhaps she is muddying the waters between ‘pleasure’ and ‘happiness’? The only real happiness in this highly realistic scenario (realistic as in it is our current reality) is to walk away, which is to invite suffering. James Corbett just wrote an insightful article about this: “You see, "happiness" is one of those words that has strayed so far from its original meaning that we can no longer recognize its roots. In this case, as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) kindly informs us, both the adjective "happy" and the noun "happiness" are derived from the root word "hap," meaning "chance" or "fortune." https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/2024-and-the-pursuit-of-happiness
If nothing else, this demonstrates that a decent, right thinking person is incapable of even beginning to imagine a dichotomy of suffering as dire as truly evil people actually impart on their fellow humans (if indeed these people really are human).
If anyone's interested in the concept of human sacrifice I highly recommend the Martyrmade podcast by Darryl Cooper. He has a 3 part series on this, with much emphasis on the Aztecs, where he actually references the ones who walk away from omelas. The episodes are up on spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6aA7GwsEBqFiBshQ0a9vZu?si=2VFfr6nDROCRMssDppSOzw