In exchange for their ultimate happiness and success, is one child’s misery. In order to live their “perfect” lives the citizens of Omelas must accept the suffering of the child. To make the right ethical decision is difficult, but necessary to end the injustice of the society. Failing to overcome the ethical issues in the city of Omelas is displayed through three different characters in the story. There are those who choose to ignore the situation, those who observe the child in misery, and those who feel that they must walk away.
Through yell... ... middle of paper ... ...tunately see the opposite of how cultures are not to be oppressed by each other. The KKK is a hating group that will never succeed in their actions because they are not peaceful but ignorant and ethnocentric. Arguments are a great way to prove points when they are conducted with positive outcomes in mind but no one should argue about culture. No one should kill someone else because of their culture. Discussion of culture is commended, but no culture is better than another.
Although this relaxed approach may offer consolation in times of trouble, I do not think that it is ideal as there is no way to know if we can truly do nothing about it. Having the problem on your mind makes it easier for you to grasp inspirations to solve the problem. Zhuangzi views life and death as unimportant things. He thinks that everything in the world is equal, including the physical body, and that they not related to the true self. I find his view of just accepting death as a ‘process of change’ slightly radical as it goes against the biological instinct of survival and reproduction.
There would be, effectively, no progress made because not one person would be able to think beyond the thoughts of the least intelligent person in said society. People would lose all of their unique and distinct qualities and therefore their humanity. They would suppress themselves into small, minuscule beings that have no impact on anything. There would no longer be free choice or any type of opinion. In “Harrison Bergeron”, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. uses irony to express that complete and total equality in everything, both mental and physical, will effectively destroy any possibility of development in a society.
Gustave Flaubert once said, “Artist’s who seek perfection in everything are those who cannot attain it in anything.” This quote expresses how those who strive for perfection are sure to never reach it. We all have our idea of a perfect world, with perfect people, but this is unrealistic. Imperfections are a part of life, and if we were to try and remove them, it would not have a satisfying result. A number of people believe that removing deformities would cause humanity to work together peacefully, while eliminating things like jealousy, greed, and embarrassment. But, they are overlooking the gloomy effects that come with perfection.
It is a middle ground between the best and the worst. The inclination of all is to do injustice without paying any price for that action, the worst is to suffer injustice without being able to take revenge (37). It follows then that justice becomes a mean between these two extreme scenarios. Most people will tend to value justice not because it is a good in itself but because they do not have the ability to do injustice without negative consequences. An individual that does possess the ability to practice injustice without consequence will therefore never willingly enter into agreement not to do injustice for the simple proclamation of not to suffer it.
However, Epicurus and Epictetus fail to address the true emotional nature of death and its impact on the human psyche. Accepting these philosophies requires an inherent selfishness that cannot possibly lead to achieving a tranquil and essentially good life. Epicurus argues all good and bad things derive from a sensation of pleasure or pain. He advocated the absence of pain and the attainment of a happy, tranquil life. Achieving this state of mind includes expelling the fear of death, which he attempted to philosophically refute.
The New World defines happiness as the absence of conflicts which could disturb its overall tranquility, and as a result make it impossible to control. Its motto “community identity stability” (Huxley 1) exemplifies the three ways for a society to succeed; by being concerned with the needs of the community as a whole, taking away its member’s identities, and maintaining stability by ensuring the overall happiness of the society. However, since the desire to achieve a utopian world has sacrificed all human qualities, civilization is unable to experience the feeling of being truly happy, only the effects of being conditioned to do so.
To leave the town would mean self-sacrifice for the benefit of Omelas. To stay would mean self sacrifice for the benefit of the child. To do nothing would be impossible, because one cannot stay in Omelas unless one is perfectly happy. It is certainly not an easy
The citizens of the joyful town benefit from the child being so badly treated because without it, they wouldn’t understand how much better their life is than the child’s. “They feel disgust, which they had thought themselves superior to.” (Page 3) There is a price to pay between the happiness for all at the expense of the child, and the happiness of the child at the expense of the happiness for all.