Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



John Yik ([info]john_yik) wrote in [info]fandom_wank,
@ 2005-06-27 11:33:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
The Ones Who Wank Away From Omelas
Here's an ancient wank that's come back to haunt the board it was posted on.

Almost a year ago, a thread was posted on the Comic Book Rumbles forum asking a hypothetical question about Ursula LeGuin's short story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. People weigh in their opinions, discuss what they'd do if they found themselves in the eponymous Omelas, and a thought-provoking discussion is had by all. Supposedly.


The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas describes an Utopian city in which disease, famine and strife of all sorts. They have festivals, orgies, and generally live in happy-happy land for century after century.

The price of all this, however, is that they must slowly kill a randomly chosen child over several years of hideous, stomach-turning abuse--after which they choose another one, and the process goes on. A rite of passage in the society is to go look at the child suffering in the closet in which they keep it. Occasionally, some citizens of the city become disgusted with the practice and walk away.

The general consensus among the posters, at least for the first two pages, is that the moral decision is not to walk away or to stay, but to cut a bloody swathe through the bodies of the Omelans to rescue the child. Yes, they're a violent lot.

Even with several dissenting opinions, the debate remains fairly civil and philosophical, even with the entry into the discussion of Chuckg, veteran poster renowned for his abrasiveness and lack of tact. This state of affairs lasts only until the entry into the thread of the poster known as Sam.

You know what? I think Omelas has made the morally correct decision.

The underlying suffering of an innocent child is horrible. It is terrible in a way that beggars comprehension.

Know what's worse? A thousand children living in exactly the same circumstances. Or a hundred thousand, or a million, depending on how big Omelas is.

Because make no mistake: That's what the real world is like. Right now, everywhere in the world, there are children, and for that matter adults, living in conditions every bit as horrible as that poor Omelasian child. Hell, there are people who'd trade places with that child in a flat second if they could. And there are millions of them.


If you free the child, it is absolutely certain that a thousand other children will live virtually identical lives of pointless suffering. That's what happens in the real world. That's what you're restoring.

There is a statistically significant portion of the population which lives in conditions every bit as abominable as what you quoted. There always has been. The portion is lower now than it has been in the past (in the US, anyway), but it has never even been remotely close to being eliminated.

Except in Omelas, where they've managed to whittle it down to just a single person. Which is still horrible, but better than the thousands upon thousands who live that way in the real world.


For reference, by the way, the conditions to which he is referring are here.

Some people think that there are flaws in Sam's arguments. They aren't shy about pointing them out.

A note: from observations of past threads in this forum, long since deleted when the board crashed, unfortunately, Sam appears to have a rather...jaundiced view of humanity. The posters aren't shy about bringing that up, either.

Then wank explodes when The Real Nemo announces, "Sorry, the sheer amount of self-righteousness in this thread is making me sick..." And civility--especially from Chuckg--goes out the window. A few pages on, the debate between Chuckg and Sam starts to grow even more heated, climaxing in this magnificent tirade by Chuckg against Sam.

It's fortunate that good sense wins out and both Chuckg and Sam leave the thread before anything really bad breaks out, isn't it?

Unfortunately, this is just the prelude.

On the 16th of this month, Metaphysician starts a thread asking which of the great philosophical debates to come up on Comic Book Rumbles should never be mentioned again. Omelas, obviously is one of them.

And wank explodes.


(Post a new comment)


[info]esseilte
2005-06-27 08:17 pm UTC (link)
I'm fairly sure I remember ChuckG from Buffy fandom. BAPS, if I recall correctly. Mainly, what I remember is that I started off thinking of him as amusing and intelligent, and ended by thinking of him as a fuckwit.

And that's without having any actual personal arguments with him.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]john_yik
2005-06-27 09:57 pm UTC (link)
Same thing here, too. He's got some sort of anger management problem that makes every argument he gets in into a raging flamewar. Which is a damn pity, because he really is a very good debater.

Of course, maybe it might have gone to his head...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]dommichan
2005-06-27 08:32 pm UTC (link)
I tried to read more than ten pages of that, I really did. But like most debates on morality, it just turned into "but no what about THIS..." over and over again. And now I have a headache.

Am also curious about what philosophical argument in The Killing Joke that one person said they didn't agree with...because the only one I even see in that is "Joker and Batman will kill each other." Which...how could one possibly disagree with that?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mistressrenet
2005-06-27 09:55 pm UTC (link)
I think-- maybe-- it was to do with the discussion between the Joker and the Batman, the "you had a bad day and everything changed" one. But I'm not sure I'd call it a philosophical argument.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Hrm... - [info]dommichan, 2005-06-28 06:03 am UTC
Re: Hrm... - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-28 03:17 pm UTC
Re: Hrm... - [info]dommichan, 2005-06-29 06:18 pm UTC
Re: Hrm... - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-29 07:17 pm UTC
Re: Hrm... - [info]dommichan, 2005-06-29 11:04 pm UTC
Re: Hrm... - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-29 11:22 pm UTC

[info]kadath
2005-06-27 08:50 pm UTC (link)
Sam's argument is the Utilitarian one. In reductio ad absurdum philosophy problems, philosophers will always end up asking things like "if you could cure cancer forever by killing 100 innocent children, would you? A pure Utilitarian will say yes. A pure Kantian (now there's a rare breed) will say no. It all depends on which moral postulates you hold. A lot of it is whether you place more value on the individual or the society as a whole.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]beccastareyes
2005-06-27 09:36 pm UTC (link)
Gee, this makes me remember the philosophy and ethics seminar my internship had us attend. The reductio ad absurdum problems our instructors asked (usually to get us to use the Socratic method to figure out why we found things so objectionable) usually didn't go over well with a group of astrophysics students who are training in picking apart arguments. Espeically since occassionally the instructors would try to integrate science into the problems, and then we would pick at that instead of the ethics.

Interesting class, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kadath, 2005-06-27 09:45 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]beccastareyes, 2005-06-27 10:19 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]kadath, 2005-06-27 11:08 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]thewashinator, 2005-06-28 03:08 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sarracenia, 2005-06-28 06:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-06-29 12:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mastervex, 2005-06-29 04:21 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]teratologist, 2005-07-01 05:11 am UTC

[info]phosfate
2005-06-27 10:56 pm UTC (link)
Can we kill 100 innocent children with cancer?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kadath, 2005-06-27 10:59 pm UTC

[info]msmanna
2005-06-27 11:59 pm UTC (link)
In reductio ad absurdum philosophy problems, philosophers will always end up asking things like "if you could cure cancer forever by killing 100 innocent children, would you?

Which seems a silly thing to do when they could use the absolutely concrete real-life example of vaccination programmes, which do precisely that. I'm guessing that philosophers don't know a lot of epidemiology.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]kadath, 2005-06-28 12:06 am UTC

[info]waltraute
2005-06-28 05:47 am UTC (link)
I love me the Kantians. So rare, those who both believe and understand all of it, they are.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]notjo, 2005-06-29 01:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]waltraute, 2005-06-29 01:18 am UTC

[info]sarajayechan
2005-06-27 09:31 pm UTC (link)
Hey, I remember doing that story in English Comp II! Funnily enough, nobody in my class likened the suffering of that one child to the real world...they were more focused on analyzing the story for what it was-a story.

(Reply to this)


[info]electricchick
2005-06-27 09:48 pm UTC (link)
I remember having a debate like that in one of my high school English classes. It was something about a disease and how you could either steal the cure to save your own child, or keep working on a cure for everyone else. I also remember being called heartless and cruel because I said I would rather save thousands of other children, but hey. Life goes on.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]notjo
2005-06-29 01:04 am UTC (link)
Wasn't that the plot of a movie once... With Sean Connery?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]electricchick, 2005-06-29 03:27 am UTC

[info]mistressrenet
2005-06-27 09:54 pm UTC (link)
...these Romans are crazy.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]phosfate
2005-06-27 10:55 pm UTC (link)
Ils sont fou, ces Romans!

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-28 03:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2005-06-28 04:11 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]smo, 2005-06-29 02:51 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-29 11:23 pm UTC

[info]lurker32
2005-06-27 11:47 pm UTC (link)
I have such a clear mental image of Ursula Le Guin headdesking repeatedly.

(Reply to this)


[info]dawnswalker
2005-06-28 12:49 am UTC (link)
They can never discuss "Omelas" again, but no one said anything about "The Lottery"...

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]blackjackrocket
2005-06-28 07:03 am UTC (link)
I can never go to Forest Grove, OR, because it reminds me so much of the town from The Lottery.

Seriously.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-28 03:18 pm UTC
(no subject) - ketsuban, 2005-06-29 04:17 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-29 04:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]inalasahl, 2005-07-06 10:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-07-06 12:51 pm UTC

[info]yamashitaaki
2005-06-28 01:36 am UTC (link)
From The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas:
If so, please add an orgy. If an orgy would help, don’t hesitate.

Okay!

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]jat_sapphire
2005-06-28 02:58 pm UTC (link)
(sadly) But she didn't write one.

(brightens) But she did later! A hermaphroditic orgy! (In "Coming of Age in Karhide," BTW.) So cool. I adore her.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]lurker32, 2005-06-29 02:30 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jat_sapphire, 2005-06-29 03:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]lurker32, 2005-06-29 07:03 pm UTC
Ah, Omelas
[info]ecchaniz0r
2005-06-28 04:01 am UTC (link)
That spawned wank in my English class, and I'm not shocked that it's doing it on the intarwebz, too.

I wasn't too fond of the story. it just seemed to...mh...heavyhanded and obvious to me. But I'm a nerd-ass, so.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Ah, Omelas
[info]kannaophelia
2005-06-28 04:33 am UTC (link)
Nah, I have all respect for the good lady, but that story annoys the hell out of me. It's such a contrived situation that it's not very useful to apply any moral decision made on it to anything but the story itself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Ah, Omelas - [info]waltraute, 2005-06-28 05:49 am UTC
Re: Ah, Omelas - [info]ecchaniz0r, 2005-06-28 06:10 pm UTC
Re: Ah, Omelas - [info]waltraute, 2005-06-28 07:12 pm UTC
Re: Ah, Omelas - (Anonymous), 2005-07-15 12:16 am UTC
Me? Le Guin Hata? Neverrr...
[info]adora_spintriae
2005-06-28 06:32 am UTC (link)
Yeah well, with a wanky-arse short story like that, you've got to expect this, really. Pretentious bitch...

(Reply to this)


[info]eljuno
2005-06-28 06:33 am UTC (link)
Um, isn't the entire point of 'Those Who Walk Away from Omelas' hit upon in the title? Like, it's about the ones who can't stand that their comfort is paid for by another's suffering and leave and is it really moral at all to have your comfort paid for by someone else's suffering (and, let's be honest, that's the way we ALL live)?

Because that's what I'VE always gotten out of it...

(Reply to this)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]mistressrenet, 2005-06-28 03:19 pm UTC

[info]the_wanlorn
2005-07-01 06:46 pm UTC (link)
Ohhhh I love that story! Purely because it managed to divide my 10th grade English class into warring, hating parties. The majority was the hippie, tree-hugging, OMG NO1 SUFFAS!! And then me and a hand of others going "But... one versus more-than-one suffering. The ends do justify the means! They do! They do!"

Yay for real-life wanksplosions!

WTF? -osion? What kind of a crazy ending is that??

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2005-07-02 09:39 pm UTC (link)
I really wish I could stop reading "Omelas" as "Omelettes".

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map