/lit/ - Literature

Does anyone really think walking away from Omelas is the right thing to do?

Can the decision to leave Omelas be justified without Deontological ethics?

Either stay in Omelas and enjoy it or stay in Omelas and work to destroy it. Leaving Omelas is the most morally cucked thing anyone could ever possibly do. You're still giving implicit acceptance for torturing a child by not working to stop it, and you don't even provide any sort of meaning for that torture by embracing the benefits. Imagine if everyone walked away, the result would be countless children tortured eternally in order to create a paradise where no one lives or visits. That's the reality you vote for by leaving.

>>23151806
Keep in mind, the reason everyone can live a good life in Omelas is supposed to be because of the tortured child, so by destroying it you're also ruining everyone else's supposed utopia. In this sense, you can't "destroy" anything, because the tortured child is like a social or political system, not a singular entity that can be destroyed. If you kill the child or set it free, those who enjoyed living in Omelas will simply restart the system with another child. Unless you convince everyone that living in Omelas is bad (which is impossible) or kill everyone who likes living in Omelas, you will inevitably end up failing.
So if someone is personally opposed to the system, wouldn't walking away make the most sense?

>>23151806
Walking away is less of a moral act and more of a selfish one done for the person that leaves. They do it because they cannot mentally embrace the utopia with the knowledge of the cost. It's a way to shed personal guilt, not actually change anything.

>>23151851
You continually undermine the system until it falls apart or you die trying. That is the only moral thing to do if you're opposed to the idea of torturing children. Any course of action that allows the system to continue without impediment is giving implicit support for it.

>>23151859
And that's why it's morally cucked. It's the option for people who have morals without convictions, people who were born to be slaves.

>>23151422
>Omelas

You bitch you listened to the Shaun YouTube about Palestine where he talked about this commie IQ100 book. Ursela sucks cock

>>23151877
We're speaking metaphorically here. "Walking away" is supposed to represent any action that undermines the system. Omelas is meant to represent a situation where the majority disagree with you, so you cannot impose your ideals by force.
>>23151859
I disagree. Unless you have literally zero people who know you, your decision is bound to have an effect on those around you.

>>23151883
what the fuck are you talking about
>literal who youtuber
retard

>>23151904
Don't play coy with me you YouTube commie faggot

>>23151883
>Ursula sucks cock
implying she's straight? based.
>>23151909
illiterate schizo retard projecting

>>23151924
Literally no one knew who ursula k leguin was until anon's favorite youtuber made a video about one of her books.

>>23151935
nobody gives a fuck about this faggot streamer you're trying to shill. fuck off and kys

>>23151940
I'm making fun of the guy shilling the streamer lmfao.

What is the utilitarian response to this dilemma? Do they think it's okay to torture the child as long as everyone else is happy?

>>23151902
Metaphorically speaking, walking away does not undermine the system. And just because the majority disagrees with you does not mean you don't have the capacity to convince others of your view.

>>23152073
You do have a point.
I'm not sure about this, but I think it's supposed to be a metaphor for the Vietnam War, so leaving Omelas might represent draft evasion, which means you're right about it being ineffective.

>>23152133
I don't think that makes a lot of sense; draft evasion provides a tangible benefit to the person evading and is an escape from going to an actual hellhole. It's hardly analogous to leaving a utopia.

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to moreso be a metaphor for living in a first world capitalist country that flourishes, at least in part, due to third world child labor somewhere in the supply chain. The whole "no ethical consumption under capitalism" mantra.

>>23151935
>Literally no one knew who ursula k leguin was until anon's favorite youtuber made a video about one of her books.
I frequently made posts and threads about her. You faggots couldn't shut up about how she's the proto-woke.

>>23152135
That doesn't make sense though, America was a prosperous country before we started outsourcing labor to China or whatever
It's a fairly broad metaphor to be honest, I'm not sure if it's even meant to refer to one specific thing
>>23152138
I just like Earthsea I don't care about the pseudo-woke shit

>>23152154
I probably didn't really word it right. I'm not trying to say it's one specific thing but more generally the idea of "haves" building their success on the "have nots". Before it was outsourcing cheap labour the U.S had slaves etc, not to mention the Native Americans that were fucked over for the U.S to expand. Someone is always at the bottom of the totem pole.

>>23152135
This seems reasonable to me, although I think it's more abstract than that. The difficulty of living up to one's principles has been a topic of discussion since the dawn of time.

The draft evasion thing doesn't really work at all since the draftees would be the ones supposedly paying the price for paradise, not the ones making the choice whether to stay or leave.

>>23152158
Why is it wrong for the "haves" to act in their own self-interest? If Omelas really is such a nice place to live, why would someone want to oppose it?

>>23152286
I don't think it is. The question is whether it's okay for a minority to suffer for the pleasure of the majority.

>>23152295
Realistically, why not, if it is a natural byproduct of the majority pursuing their own self-interests?