The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas - Analysis

"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin learning.hccs....
This moral "Tale" (really an aphorism came out in the 1970s - does it have much to say about the hedonistic calculus? How about the period from which the short work emerged?
dvspress.com/t...
Join the list and get a free book! dvspress.com/list
www.bitchute.c...
www.subscribes...
Read my books- dvspress.com
www.minds.com/...
davidvstewart.com
zulonline.com
www.amazon.com/author/davidvandykestewart
www.minds.com/...
teespring.com/...

[@batman5224]

I always love it when videos are posted in the middle of the night. It makes me feel like I’m not completely alone.

[@FallenHellscape]

You’re not. We’re all hiding in your closet.

[@KamikazeChinaman]

Also, remember that there's a skeleton inside you.

[@OsiasArt]

Sam Harris' whole approach to ethics is predicated on the hedonistic calculus. He genuinely thinks we can establish a rigorous field of empirical inquiry into morality by taking the moral landscape of wellbeing and suffering as our standard. Of course this falls apart very quickly even under college-level philosophical scrutiny. Robert Nozick's "experience machine" thought experiment also conclusively refutes the idea that the highest moral standard we can have - the highest value we can possibly uphold - is one of wellbeing, which is a deceptive, vague, and nebulous concept in of itself. I value the truth and reality more than wellbeing. I'd rather suffer in the real world than lead a pain-free existence in a simulated paradise. Excellent video as ever. Thank you for sharing.

[@DVSPress]

Thanks! Almost all attempts I've seen to create secular morality end up stalling out when applied to real humans. "Universally preferable behavior" always breaks down when you have a sufficient quantity of diverse opinions as to what is preferred, etc.

[@Undone545]

You worded my qualms with sam perfectly. Im not even some philosophy major or anything and his logic has holes upon holes but people have quoted sam as finding the way, with their chest. Sometimes i think antitheists will settle for anything as long as God is not attached

[@Proghead88]

The fact that you think wellbeing and truth are not compatible shows you didn't understand the most basic parts of the argument. The point is to rely on truth, facts, and logic in order to determine a basic level of human rights and wellbeing on the most universal level. I'm pretty sure it is scientifically proven than every human experiences pain... pretty sure it is true and factual that psychological trauma affects everyone and we should ve aware of it. So on and so forth... if you want to survive in large societies, by default, those that create chaos, don't usually go far. Sometimes they do, but then, no form of morality will stop THOSE people. A good upbringjng is inherently self-perpetuating down generations and over time, creating a basic expectation and system that most people agree with. You will never find absolute perfect morality through any method whatsoever, but the basics are pretty consistent between humans (because of genetics/anatomy). You can extend the logic of basic morality (based in cooperative survival) into more unique issues between people. At a certain point, it separates from "morality" and becomes "preference", as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. That freedom is important too. Given that, I'd rather rely on facts and science to trust whether I can believe my thoughts about what "wellbeing" means beyond my own personal desires and bias to be happy without any connection to anyone else (which is highly unlikely). I'm not a Harris fan, I just think your representation of a larger argument seemed disconnected from what I usually hear/think about it. Learning how to think and eliminate your biases and contradictions benefits anyone that tries. They then want to pass on that method of self-correction (and factual knowledge that others go through similar obstacles). In many ways, I look at morality as a part of that method of self-correction.

[@OsiasArt]

@@Proghead88 It looks like YOU don't understand the basic argument. You can't use empirical facts to determine axiological imperatives, because moral values are prescriptive, not descriptive. Hume's is-ought Guillotine remains insurmountable and cannot be ignored simply by calling it a "linguistic sleight of hand", much as Harris desperately tries to. "Every human being experiences pain." Okay. So what? What follows from that? Why should we care that they experience pain? Why should the minimization of suffering be the guiding principle behind our ethical system? It's a completely arbitrary standard. Some people, like Nietzsche, find pain and suffering to be of incredible value and importance. You haven't refuted anything here. You're just tautologically regurgitating Harris' basic core argument, which I already showed to be fallacious.

[@Proghead88]

@UCGu17rym8Pun4GzEg8E1-1A I never said morals were descriptive. Read what I said again. Those are my thoughts. No point in bringing up Sam Harris for any of it. You can prescribe subjectively moral values based on universally known facts, if you have the education to make those connections. There is no objective morality or a single perfect standards, so might as well live in the real world and realize the best we can do is at the very least, try to agree on the same facts and events that are external from our inner world. My main point is very simple: Truth and facts are compatible with ensuring a scientifically verifiable state of basic well-being. The more subtle parts of morality that are not obvious and based on basic human survival and cooperation still can be extrapolated since they fit within the rest of your choices and impact each other. If you try to get rid of contradictions in your life through logic, you WILL arrive at a practical system of interaction with the environment/other people. And you have to accept that might not always happen because there is no actual objective morality. It doesn't mean I can't argue for what I think is practically moral. It works great for me and others, so you can't just dismiss it entirely. Maybe you are misunderstanding me. Very possible. And again, "why should we care about others' suffering?". Because if we don't create a mutually beneficial system, it will be MUCH harder to live a happy life, especially given the fact that you can't separate the complex history and morals based on it from the evolution of our own society which depends on it to begin with. We are intertwined within an arbitrary moral system that is based on objective facts. Of course it is arbitrary, you have to learn to accept that and realize that many patterns are emergent from a set of circumstances and there is no guarantee that it will remain so. That's life. You can still spread a positive message based on logical cause and effect in order to improve the Society you share with others. It's called experience and social growth. You act as if morality works in a vacuum and it's something that people need to figure out from scratch every single time. We're not trying to write a book four other philosophers here, we are trying to represent the complex interactions between people.

[@deepashtray5605]

Or Le Guin is saying that walking away without taking any actions that might change the child's situation is morally no different than staying and accepting or willfully ignoring the situation.

[@fishperson5390]

That sounds like a setting for one of those "small town hides a dark secret" stories

[@tuppybrill4915]

I liked this story when I first read it (mid 80s I would think) and was very struck by the punch to the guts when the abused child is revealed. It struck me at the time that what seems an outrageous exaggeration is what is true of us anyway (iPhones made in sweat shops) . I didn’t take anymore away from it than that. Even the “ ones that walked away” was simply that not everyone is prepared to have their pleasures at the expense of another. As an aside one could argue that there is a Christian metaphor in there where our sins are paid for by Jesus’ suffering, the innocent for the guilty, but maybe that’s me reading into it. I think Ursula Le Guin is just posing the question, what would you be prepared to tolerate as a price for your pleasures. Perhaps the thing that makes you aware of the “ third option” is the awareness of an absolute authority that tells you that the treatment of the child is horrific and should be stopped even if everyone is disadvantaged, without that absolute authority there is no rational argument for the “third option”.

[@marvalice3455]

you don't actually need a rational argument for the third option, because humans do not always act rationally.

[@bingxilao9086]

Happiness is an incentive and guideline, not a purpose in itself. I wonder why people mistake it for one?

[@fredricksimen]

I think it's possible (in a philosophical sense, not practical) to have a materialist utopia that's not focused merely on pleasurable experiences (as you describe "sex, drugs, and rock & roll"). One of our drives as human beings seems to be seeking solutions to our dissatisfactions, which is the creative drive behind everything from the smallest doodle in the margin of a page to the grandest innovations and explorations in our history. We can say Omelas also has the technological and cultural base to allow residents to experiment with art and engineering (and the significant overlap between the two) in pursuit of, let's say, knowledge of the cosmos, or ever more efficient ways of providing necessities of life to the people of Omelas. It's just a wrinkle the author didn't pause to write in, but we may imagine it's there. Also, since you mentioned sin and Jewish moral philosophy, I have always thought it interesting that the word "sin" isn't really in there. The word most commonly translated as "sin" actually means "error", and is used in a secular context to denote a failed attempt at meeting particular expectations (as in marksmanship, when one misses the target).

[@MrSilentProtagonist]

I think that the lack of the third option is intentional. The story is called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" because of how humanly useless the action is. An individual leaving Omelas has almost no real effect. They don't get the benefits of the child's suffering and the child doesn't get saved. They are moral enough to not want the child to suffer but they are too cowardly to save the child. However, each person leaving Omelas is two shoulders less shouldering the guilt. It is simply such a distinctly human and illogical choice. Utilitarianism rots the heart.

[@MrSilentProtagonist]

@@GladeSwope Judging her other works, it is a pro-choice message.

[@80krauser]

We read it in high school though our teacher used it as a segue into the concept of utopia in general. At the time I was under the impression that everything outside was blasted hellscape, unable to support much in the way of life. So walking away was more or less a death sentence. One girl did bring up she would just take the child and the teacher explained sure but the entire civilization would collapse into anarchy and whatever magic or tech that provides everything would permanently stop. So all the food, water and other supplies they would need to start a less morally reprehensible society would be gone. And being the useless hedonistic jackasses they were most would die horribly from starvation, dehydration and warfare collecting the former. It’s been years and maybe I was mistaken but that was my understanding of the moral question. Sure the system is jacked up but by setting things ‘right’ you doom many more to suffering, starvation, and war as it collapses into Mad Max. So did you really do the ‘right’ thing after all? If the lands outside were perfectly habitable with at least a buffer of wild foodstuffs then to me the entire thing falls apart. I never really thought much deeper into it than that just the practical ‘will ending the party just kill everyone’. I’m not too good at philosophy In suppose

[@Eldritchfan]

I hated that "story" so much. The society was so vague and There was no connection at all between the society and the kid that made it necessary. It was all so pretentious and pseudo profound.

[@ForeverTemplar]

Yeah, we're supposed to have nuanced and balanced opinions, but frankly I just thought it plain 'ole sucked dog turds.

[@kit888]

Search, When Child Labor Is Your Only Option Mike Reid, for the free market argument.

[@bmardiney]

I don’t even think you need the abused child to find that utopia appalling. It sounds terrible in and of itself. Life without struggle is not life. It’s why Star Trek will never be real, regardless of a “lack of scarcity” society. We basically already have this utopia and people are more miserable now than in previous eras.

[@drewmandan]

The utopia of Star Trek is in the people, not the environment. Picard mentions at one point that people strive to better themselves. Right now, that statement only describes a minute fraction of humanity.

[@bmardiney]

@@drewmandan people don’t do anything without intrinsic incentives. The Star Trek universe does not provide those incentives and thus, the characters shown are not human beings.

[@drewmandan]

@@bmardiney I can tell you that for me personally, my own spiritual growth incentivizes me more than money. So your claim that all people are Homo Economicus is proven false. So what the writers of TNG were trying to get at is that there's so much material stuff that everyone is forced to upgrade their thinking to the next level, beyond the drive for money. Because if you have all the creature comforts, money is not an incentive for you anymore, assuming you're not trapped in a childhood trauma or something. But presumably in TNG, therapists are much better at their job too. The point is, there's plenty of incentives. It's just that it's not money.

[@bmardiney]

@@drewmandan Do you think money is the only thing to go out the window in the Star Trek universe? What about the dominance hierarchy? Not everyone can be the captain of the Enterprise. So if there are only a few valued positions to go around, who is going to be the ship's janitor? Sorry, it just doesn't work. Scarcity drives all human endeavor. If you remove scarcity, you destroy humanity.

[@drewmandan]

@@bmardiney You're missing the point entirely. Postscarcity means there is no janitor. If you had actually watched TNG, you would know full well that the ship is mostly self-cleaning. For more intricate maintenance, you have engineers. That's a highly sought after and respected position.

[@lovesegarra497]

Not that I support child labor, but you've removed the option of choice. People working in third world or in western world choose jobs and payments they are willing to accept. Capitalism is based not on supply and demand, but of desperation...whether logical or illogical. Do you really needs the things you buy? Or is it a false necessity or social comparisonism(keeping up with the joneses) or advertising programming?

[@crusherven]

@El Bearsidente Yes, assuming you're not talking about slave labor. The options available suck, but the sweatshop still might be their best option from a field of bad choices. In your example, if you take away the sweatshop, the family starves. Most people would say that at least being able to feed their family is a good thing.

[@tuppybrill4915]

I heard the tale (I haven’t checked whether it is true but it rings true) that Germans on discovering that their finely made rugs were dependent on child labour in the far east stopped buying the rugs so the work dried up for the children who then had to resort to the only other option open to them which was prostitution . Simplistic solutions are often not the best.

[@KaushalDaLocal]

@@russ254 The might be the most ignorant take i've seen on this issue. The governments are the ones who choose to get "exploited" and, together with multinational corporations, they impoverish already lower class citizens by taking their land for example, and give them no choice but to work in a factory for a measly wage that would prevent them from starving. Yak herding and substinence farming would be perfectly fine and necessary if not for the first moves made by exploitative Western industries and complicit local governments.

[@anthonylipke7754]

I've taken it as the best of all possible worlds may have a fly in the ointment and people would reject it with no idea how to make it better. I seem to recall it's handwaved that in context the necessity is provable. The whole thing is a thought experiment and all we know is the narration so I took them to be reliable and not a participant for the sake of the exercise. I may have missed where the narrator is unreliable internally but I suspect it's just the consequence of the hypothetical that is the root of the claim. It's not a rationalization if it's true. I don't pretend to know what the author meant to be brought to it as outside context but I imagine we all do bring outside contexts. You could compare this to heaven while hell exists if you want for example. I don't imagine minds and meaning can persist in utopia so yeah it's a cartoon utopia.

[@clintcarpentier2424]

By the sounds of it, it's written by someone who is right. The problem with authors who are right, is that they write from the perspective of "if not this, then that..." They can't be bothered to explore the other facets of the equation. If not Christianity, than Utopia at this expense. Well, Christianity has it's own expense. And you said it too, the one's who walk away, need a hell to exist, in order to feel righteous. If not this, then that. is a fundy mentality. And you see it, in the religious, the SJW's, the feminists, the eco-geeks. If not this, then that. Reminds me of what I've pieced together of Snowpiercer. All the hoopla about keeping the engine running. Who maintains the tracks?