I have to say this story caught me off guard. When I first started reading it, I thought the narrator was just describing a generic utopia to try to make some political point. But then I got to the part about the child in the dark, and why he/she is there. Wow. How do you decide something like that? "To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement; to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed." That one child is taking all the unhappiness and misery of the entire town upon itself without even knowing it. And if someone tries to help him/her, they would be responsible for any bit of misfortune or sadness that anyone experienced in that town from then on. I think that's what the author meant when they said that would be to let guilt in. So the question is, what would be right? To let that one child suffer endlessly for the sake of no one else in the town ever having to? Or to free the child from it's prison and let everyone fend for their own happiness themselves? Happiness would no longer be guaranteed, but it would be at their own cost and their own work, not that of a suffering child. Omelas is of the mentality that the whole is great than the part; that as long as the majority of the people in that town are completely happy, that's what matters. This story presents a very hard ethical question that no one will agree upon.
Being a christian, it's impossible for me not to see the parallels from this story to real life. Jesus, like this innocent child, took all our hurts, sadnesses, and sins upon himself so that we could all live without them. He became miserable so that we wouldn't have to. He died so we could truly live, and live well, like the people of omelas (except probably without the drugs and orgies and nude priestesses :]). But there are people who can't accept that. Like the ones who walk away from omelas, they walk away from salvation and the gift of life abundant.
Sorry, not meaning to preach or anything...it's just what I think of when I read it :]
edit (a section I forgot when I first wrote this): In a place like Omelas, people wouldn't truly know what happiness felt like, because they would have nothing to compare it to. As humans, we can't know the highest highs of happiness if we have never experienced hurt or sadness or anger. Our bad experiences that we go through in life only make the good ones so much better. To feel, you have to take the whole package.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I liked how you compared the child to Jesus, I didn't see it that way. What kind of life are these people living, though? To let an innocent child suffer so that they may be happy, seems so selfish and wrong. I think that we would be doing the town a favor by saving the child. Pain may not be a pleasant feeling but it defines happiness. I believe that we need to hurt, it's this feeling that helps us truly value our lives. It is this necessity that the ones that walked away from Omelas were searching. Life has to have its ups and downs, that's what life is all about. Although Utopia is something many dream about and seek, it will never be achieved because something like that can only work in a dream.
I completely agree. And I'm about to add more on my blog cause it was something I meant to say but forgot to put :]
Dang, that was a long blog, but good thoughts overall. I had a hard time thinking what the right thing to do in this situation would be too. It puts an interesting spin on it. I think it would be alot different if the child had volunteered to take the hit for the rest of the world. O well, thank goodness we dont have to deal with this predicament at the moment.
Post a Comment