Quote:

“Their tears at the bitter injustice dry when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept it. Yet it is their tears and anger, the trying of their generosity and the acceptance of their helplessness, which are perhaps the true source of the splendor of their lives. Theirs is no vapid, irresponsible happiness” (Le Guin 4.)

Comment:

            I found this quote in the final two pages of the text after the author has described the brilliance of Omelas misery of child that kept away. The author had previously explained to the reader that the city’s happiness depends solely on the hardships of this child. However, the citizens of Omelas will eventually wish to see the child who is the reason for their good fortune. Le Guin tells the reader that though the members of the society are upset by the child they eventually accept and move on from it.

            This quote I felt really brought up some interesting thoughts for me. I couldn’t help but see a strong notion toward the theme of the individual vs society. In this short story there are clear parallels to our modern day society and I think that the author is sending he’s readers a clear message: societal happiness is dependent on the misery of the individual. However, what really intrigued me was the notion that at some point in their lives the members of society are faced with this fact. They seek to see the source of their happiness but are not pleased when they are first confronted by the stark reality of the situation. This unrest comes from being taught a sense of was is right and wrong within the joyful society. Yet intriguingly enough this sense of wrong dissipates and becomes justified over time.

            I am curious to understand why it seems that collectively as a society we are able to overlook and accept small acts of injustices if it means prosperity for the greater good. This reminds me of the class discussion we had on Tuesday concerning the number of people involved in a seemingly unjust situation. It would seem that the more people who hold a stake in a situation, the more their individual sense of morality changes. I’d like to further this connection by mentioning ethical debate of the Trolley Problem. If a train was about to crash and kill all of its passengers on board is it right to steer the train away from danger yet, toward an innocent individual. In other words, which is more just, saving the life of one person or saving the life of many. The individual vs society. This is a conversation I hope to discuss in class.

Question:

Can societal happiness exist without the suffering of the induvial? Or is the darkness that represents the unknown political possibilities an elusive concept to society?