Omelas

[cjsmith]

I was recently reminded again (thank you, minoanmiss!) of the story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.

I love that story.

It's not a comfortable story, not exactly a delight to read*, but it speaks powerfully. LeGuin was a clear thinker and very philosophical. (I own a book of her essays, written later in life, and I have that illusion that readers get, that I know her a little bit through her writings. She's on the short list of people I really wish I could have had dinner with in my lifetime.)

Anyway, the reminder made me think of how strongly that story has affected how I think about people.

Omelas poses a question that, to me, has become one of the things I sort of form guesses about as I get to know people. Would this person ever walk away from Omelas? I don't always have an answer, but if I get to know the person for a while, I form a guess.

I know, love, and trust some people who wouldn't. I treasure those who I think would, and I trust them in a much deeper way.

________________________________________
* see also the difference between enjoying a book and being glad you read it

Comments

[zipperbear]

Ooh, I hadn't realized the possibility of saying a nice word, and I wonder if that can be lumped into the "burn it down" options.

In the real world, some people do suffer, but it's possible to live a happy and productive life without trying to add to anyone's suffering.

I was just reading up on Kevin Paffrath (the only Democrat with any traction in the recall election), and his success with real estate get-rich-quick methods, with the moral implications of that. It's possible to take damaged or dilapidated houses, fix them up, and sell them for a profit, because most people don't have the time or skill to do that, so the work is valuable. On the other hand, people owning or living in houses that are becoming dilapidated seem particularly vulnerable to exploitation -- these schemes seem to take advantage of recovering the sunk costs that others have invested and lost. What would it take for me to be comfortable flipping houses? Houses sold for back taxes or defaulted mortgages seem to be exploiting anonymous poor people (so I don't know who they are, but I know they existed). Houses sold by family heirs seem OK, as do homes sold by people upgrading or downsizing as their needs change, but those houses are probably in better condition, and closer to market price, without so much exploitable depressed equity, since those sales are more voluntary. I guess fire or flood damage (hopefully after an insurance payout) could also put buildings on the market, but it all seems like exploiting people in distress.

[cjsmith]

I've often wondered what (my mental model of) The Orange Guy would do when he visited the child. Other than enjoy it. Would he say one nice word just to make sure the rest of Omelas gets bumped off the pinnacle, and then sit there and cackle at the child's still-pretty-miserable state? (Probably. My mental model of that person is rather ugly.)

I agree that those people are vulnerable to exploitation. This question touches on what should be possible or ethical for people who have few good options. If they believe selling their home is their best choice and someone buys it, is that worse for those people than saying that no one should buy and thereby taking away their best option? I wish I had better answers.