He agreed to accept it, but he didn't volunteer. It was already decided and he just accepted it, like "well, those things happen in life"
Would you walk away from Omelas?
- Thread starter Erik Mesoy
- Start date
Actually, according to Mormon doctrine, he did volunteer.
At any rate, arguing the finer points of Christian doctrine is pretty irrelevant to the thread at hand.
At any rate, arguing the finer points of Christian doctrine is pretty irrelevant to the thread at hand.
I don't know of any non-Mormon Christians whose view is closer to what you claim to be the Christian view, than to mine.
But, the whole point was not who originally suggested him, but that, unlike the child in the OP, he was willing to do it. He still had a choice.
Chandrasekhar
Determined
A few questions I'd like to ask in general, not necessarily expecting a response: How small could the population of Omelas get before you'd say that sacrificing the child would be unjustified? What if the population of Omelas was exactly two people, a person with a great life, and the child. What if there were two people who benefitted? How many people must benefit from the unwilling, undeserved suffering of one person before it's a "good thing?" What if there were multiple children that must be sacrificed this way? What would the relative populations of the sacrifices and the citizens have to be for such a system to be justified?
Anyway, I'd say that it would be evil to tolerate such a society existing, let alone living in one. The moral thing to do would be to leave the city and gather as many outsiders as possible to return and destroy the whole system.
Anyway, I'd say that it would be evil to tolerate such a society existing, let alone living in one. The moral thing to do would be to leave the city and gather as many outsiders as possible to return and destroy the whole system.
I want to know how the torture of this child is directly or indirectly related to the happiness of the others. This supposed Utopia appears to be a cult with the illogical belief that one suffering child will help the crops grow and the world to master the arts.
I understand that a form of poverty will always exist. I have no problem with poverty. I have a problem with extreme poverty. The poor will always exist in one form or another -- self-imposed or otherwise. The child is not given a chance to try and better themselves. Even the poorest members of American society can try to get out of poverty though the odds might be stacked against them.
I would need to know how the sacrifice brings about this Utopian society. Until they tell me, they are a cult.
I understand that a form of poverty will always exist. I have no problem with poverty. I have a problem with extreme poverty. The poor will always exist in one form or another -- self-imposed or otherwise. The child is not given a chance to try and better themselves. Even the poorest members of American society can try to get out of poverty though the odds might be stacked against them.
I would need to know how the sacrifice brings about this Utopian society. Until they tell me, they are a cult.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
I think it's given.
Humpty Dumpty
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 154
What are the other ethical theories?
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Kantian ethics, for one. The suffering child is used as a mere means to an end, not an end in himself.
In Kant's formulation, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."
_Philospher_
Balancing the cranium
From a logical and biological standpoint it's hard to justify walking away from the Omelas culture. Afterall, it's a matter of doing the math. 1 person's suffering leads to the welfare of many more. Even from the moral perspective it's hard to claims that living in the Omelas culture is immoral, because it allows for so many to live meaningful lives for the cost of one, again...the numbers.
So...
If you accept living in the Omelas society you accept
1. That the suffering of the few is acceptable as long as it helps the uplift of the many.
If you leave the Omelas society
1. The uplift of the many is never justifiable if it is built off the suffering of a few.
2. Yet, if you take no action in saving the child or ceasing its misery and simply leave the Omelas society then your actions suggest that you accept the suffering of this child as long as you are not directly involved in the childs misery. Which is not an absolute yes or no to the moral question, rather a selfish cop-out.
Then again, is it not somewhat illogical for the Omelas to maintain this societal existance without ever considering that there are other possibilties of maintaining a relatively stable and peaceful without the suffering of one child? Failure to explore other societal theories is a failure to attempt reach a higher moral ground outside of what has already been presented through the suffering of this child.
So...
If you accept living in the Omelas society you accept
1. That the suffering of the few is acceptable as long as it helps the uplift of the many.
If you leave the Omelas society
1. The uplift of the many is never justifiable if it is built off the suffering of a few.
2. Yet, if you take no action in saving the child or ceasing its misery and simply leave the Omelas society then your actions suggest that you accept the suffering of this child as long as you are not directly involved in the childs misery. Which is not an absolute yes or no to the moral question, rather a selfish cop-out.
Then again, is it not somewhat illogical for the Omelas to maintain this societal existance without ever considering that there are other possibilties of maintaining a relatively stable and peaceful without the suffering of one child? Failure to explore other societal theories is a failure to attempt reach a higher moral ground outside of what has already been presented through the suffering of this child.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Too many for me to list here. These links are a decent starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ethics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Philosophy_navigation
Humpty Dumpty
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 154
I am sorry. That is not an "ethical theory." It is a paticular moral precept (or moral maxim).
Integral
Can't you hear it?
Let me try again. The question was, "What are the other ethical theories?", which would be morally opposed to Omelas. My answer was, "Kantian ethical theory", which is outlined in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. An example of how this ethical theory fits your requirements is that particular formulation of the categorical imperative which I gave above.
Working from Kant's deontology, the Omelas system is immoral.
Yes? No?
I am sorry; I am at work and cannot go and re-read the story, but I remember the story mentioning that the child cannot be brought up because of some deal. What deal? What terms? God? Other? I claim cult.
I ask for pragmatism and logic because one child suffering cannot create a society regardless of said society's beliefs. I want to know how the suffering is causing the good things to occur. What links the suffering to the positive aspects of the society?
At the very least, the child should be productive.
Of course, I apologize if my question was, in fact, answered in the story. I did not carefully read the story.
Any time we have a hypothetical ethical question, someone claims that the setup is not possible or looks for a loophole.
Perhaps, however, I am arguing from a philosophical perspective. I am simply not looking at the story in the perspective of morals or ethics. I have been taught to never look at a story from the perspective of everyone else.
Perhaps, I should look at the story with simple disbelief in the author's description. I simply do not believe him, and he appears to be trying to hard to convince his audience.
Perhaps, we should look at it through the glass of Christianity and Jesus, which, for believers, blows my ideas about one man's suffering being unable to create a society out of the water.
We could ask about the measure-ability of happiness. I don't know. Pick a conversation.
Similar threads
