There's a utopian society with literally no strife. No rulers or politicians, police, or soldiers. Everyone is happy and they're free to explore whatever intellectual or creative passion they desire. When each citizen reaches a certain age, they're shown the city's secret: In a small, dark closet in a cellar, with no windows, there's a child sitting naked and dirty. The child's malnourished, and mentally ill. It gets fed every now and then by being kicked awake and given a bowl of greasy corn meal, and it lives in its own filth and excrement. Everyone of age knows about the child, and most accept it. If the child were to leave the room or otherwise be treated well, all the prosperity of Omelas would end forever and the city would be destroyed. Eventually, some people choose to leave the city, and never return.-Would you walk away?-Is it more cruel to accept the child's sacrifice, or to abandon the city?-Is it justifiable to rescue the child and destroy the city?
So why would the kid ensure the safety and utopia?
If you're asking why the child is maintaining this utopia, you're completely missing the point.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 05, 2014, 01:39:11 PMIf you're asking why the child is maintaining this utopia, you're completely missing the point.I'm just presuming they have superpowers that could destroy the entire thing if not contained, therefore meaning if released many people would die. Or a disease like being patient 0 of a zombie virus.
Quote from: BaconShelf on December 05, 2014, 01:44:01 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on December 05, 2014, 01:39:11 PMIf you're asking why the child is maintaining this utopia, you're completely missing the point.I'm just presuming they have superpowers that could destroy the entire thing if not contained, therefore meaning if released many people would die. Or a disease like being patient 0 of a zombie virus.... Not even close.
Fairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.
Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PMFairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.
Quote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PMFairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.
So I would instead make thousands of people miserable to make one life less miserable? No thanks. Yeah, it's wrong but the entire city is more important than one person
Assuming a utopia is defined as 1, this hypothetical world lies at 0.9 recurring.
Quote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:50:51 PMQuote from: challengerX on December 05, 2014, 01:49:04 PMQuote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PMFairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.Again - it's not a utopia in that case.Technically, no. But it's pretty damn close and that's good enough for me. Imagine. One person suffering and that's it. It'd be paradise.
Quote from: challengerX on December 05, 2014, 01:49:04 PMQuote from: IcyWind on December 05, 2014, 01:47:55 PMQuote from: DAS B00T x2 on December 05, 2014, 01:44:41 PMFairly certain I had a dream about this once...Anyway, I'd probably want to help the kid, but realize that in doing so I'd set the entire city against me and most likely end up dead. I'd rather not be skun alive. This leaves the option of either accepting the child's life as a fact and the reason for my happiness and moving on, or being repulsed by it to the point where I can no longer stand to live in the city. The later option is really no better, because nothing changes for the child. He's still living the same way he was before I'd have left. May as well just utilize the fruits of his suffering. It would be rude not to.Like Psy said though. It's never going to be a utopia, if one person suffers.One person suffering while everybody else leads perfect lives? It's simple mathematics.Again - it's not a utopia in that case.
Quote from: Kinder on December 05, 2014, 01:50:28 PMSo I would instead make thousands of people miserable to make one life less miserable? No thanks. Yeah, it's wrong but the entire city is more important than one personConsidering your political views and stances, I cannot be the only one who will find this ironic.
However, this leads to the second question - which nobody has answered. Is it more or less cruel to stay in or leave the city?
Anybody who chooses to rescue the child is simply being irrational. Especially when you could just leave the city.
How would you answer this moral problem?
