OOTS #1171 - The Discussion Thread

[Worldsong]

Okay, then let me help you out by pointing something that may or may not have been in the synopsis you read:

The child that suffers so the utopia may go on is introduced to every last one of its inhabitants after said inhabitants reach a certain age. The author specifies that the condition for the utopia to keep existing is the mistreatment of the child - and that, should anyone help the child at all - at all! - the utopia ceases to exist.

Conversely, that means that, if anyone that goes visit the child so much as hugs the child, the reason for mistreating the child goes away, and the child can be treated decently, if decently for the standards of a now-flawed society.

The ones that stay in Omelas do not; they are willing to sacrifice an innocent for their happiness.
The ones that walk away from Omelas do not, but opt not to benefit from it.

No one from Omelas, absolutely no one takes the very simple steps that would be necessary to make it stop.

Did your synopsis tell you that?

My answer would be to go and treat the kid decently, not burn the city to the ground.

I'm not much for vengeance for the sake of vengeance.

EDIT: Actually, no, my first answer would be to try and figure out how it makes sense that a utopia can be created solely through neglecting one child. There's got to be some kind of system behind it which is more complex and logical than "neglected child=utopia"

If my research turned up nothing or I couldn't use the revealed data to make things better for the child without ruining utopia, THEN I'd probably go and treat the kid decently.

[Dion]

I'm rather glad Mr. Burlew doesn't read the forums anymore, to see you being so dismissive of his work and missing the point of it so badly. Especially when he's gone out of his way to beat us all about the head with that point.

It seems unlikely The Giant is unaware that he is writing self aware stick figure fantasy parody.

However, the point isn’t about the comic (which admittedly transcends the medium).

The point is that this is an awfully odd forum for you to be judgmental about other people’s reading preferences.

[The_Weirdo]

My answer would be to go and treat the kid decently, not burn the city to the ground.

I'm not much for vengeance for the sake of vengeance.

Yes. And so would mine. I'd treat the kid decently, shout at the population that their precious utopia is gone and destroyed forever and dare anyone to lay a finger on the kid ever again.

But no one else in the setting would. And I said the kid has the moral right to murder everyone there. Because, clearly, in the setting, he is on his own, surrounded by people that are either eager to exploit his misery for their gain or aware of the exploitation and unwilling to stop it.

And the "utopia", regardless, would still have to answer for the damage it caused.

[zimmerwald1915]

My answer would be to go and treat the kid decently, not burn the city to the ground.

That's the thing of it, though. Any one person treating the kid decently destroys the utopia for everyone else. Maybe it's not quite burning the city to the ground, but you're still destroying a people's way of life and depriving them of a great deal of their material comforts by treating the kid humanely.

Of course such a society, could it ever exist, would exercise its police power to make sure that no one with the intent to treat the kid humanely ever got the chance to do so. Would probably have a shoot-on-sight policy regarding anyone getting near the kid's compound. Love and compassion, to this kid, would be capital crimes, and execution would be both preemptive and summary.

[zimmerwald1915]

The point is that this is an awfully odd forum for you to be judgmental about other people’s reading preferences.

Did you miss the bit where I wasn't condemning anyone? Seems like you did.

[The_Weirdo]

That's the thing of it, though. Any one person treating the kid decently destroys the utopia for everyone else. Maybe it's not quite burning the city to the ground, but you're still destroying a people's way of life and depriving them of a great deal of their material comforts by treating the kid humanely.

Of course such a society, could it ever exist, would exercise its police power to make sure that no one with the intent to treat the kid humanely ever got the chance to do so. Would probably have a shoot-on-sight policy regarding anyone getting near the kid's compound. Love and compassion, to this kid, would be capital crimes, and execution would be both preemptive and summary.

Well, everyone is shown the kid. Compassion or kindness can be shown by talking. Talking is a free action. The utopia must fall.

[Worldsong]

Yes. And so would mine. I'd treat the kid decently, shout at the population that their precious utopia is gone and destroyed forever and dare anyone to lay a finger on the kid ever again.

But no one else in the setting would. And I said the kid has the moral right to murder everyone there. Because, clearly, in the setting, he is on his own, surrounded by people that are either eager to exploit his misery for their gain or aware of the exploitation and unwilling to stop it.

Eh, that still sounds like vengeance for the sake of vengeance. Murdering everyone in the city isn't going to improve his situation much and probably would worsen it.

I can understand that on an emotional level it makes sense that the kid should retaliate but rationally speaking I'd still say that's not the right response. Honestly I think that for those people who've become used to living in an utopia having to adapt to a now more realistically flawed system would in itself already be plenty punishment if that's what we're in for.

That's the thing of it, though. Any one person treating the kid decently destroys the utopia for everyone else. Maybe it's not quite burning the city to the ground, but you're still destroying a people's way of life and depriving them of a great deal of their material comforts by treating the kid humanely.

Of course such a society, could it ever exist, would exercise its police power to make sure that no one with the intent to treat the kid humanely ever got the chance to do so. Would probably have a shoot-on-sight policy regarding anyone getting near the kid's compound. Love and compassion, to this kid, would be capital crimes, and execution would be both preemptive and summary.

Oh it definitely would be an adventure. That said I'm fine with messing up a messed up system: I support the Chaotic Good alignment after all.

I just think that while mixing things up by ruining the exploitative utopia is a lot different from destroying the entire place. For one thing if I'm just trying to create a new system which isn't build upon throwing all the misery upon a single person I could try to make it so what comes next may be flawed but not horrible.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, everyone is shown the kid.

If true, that's profoundly stupid. I suspect that it's not - that rather, everyone who has been socialized in Omelas and would not dare to undermine their whole way of life, that is to say, everyone the authorities trust not to undermine their whole way of life, would be given the "chance." Secure in the knowledge that no one would take it.

[The_Weirdo]

If true, that's profoundly stupid. I suspect that it's not - that rather, everyone who has been socialized in Omelas and would not dare to undermine their whole way of life, that is to say, everyone the authorities trust not to undermine their whole way of life, would be given the "chance." Secure in the knowledge that no one would take it.

Well, to be sure, the author herself paints the mistreatment-utopia link in nearly "magical" terms. And the text, at the very least, makes the claim that everyone is shown the kid - and, indeed, that access thereto is fairly free. I was extrapolating from the text with the info given within it.

Oh it definitely would be an adventure. That said I'm fine with messing up a messed up system: I support the Chaotic Good alignment after all.

I just think that while mixing things up by ruining the exploitative utopia is a lot different from destroying the entire place. For one thing if I'm just trying to create a new system which isn't build upon throwing all the misery upon a single person I could try to make it so what comes next may be flawed but not horrible.

Chaotic Neutral here. I support the revolution as a matter of principle. At the same time, however, I'm working off the perspective of the kid.

[Worldsong]

If true, that's profoundly stupid. I suspect that it's not - that rather, everyone who has been socialized in Omelas and would not dare to undermine their whole way of life, that is to say, everyone the authorities trust not to undermine their whole way of life, would be given the "chance." Secure in the knowledge that no one would take it.

I mean, supposedly the entire story is built upon the idea of an unrealistic society. Them being stupid as well sounds like par for the course, ESPECIALLY with that stupidity not coming back to bite them.

Well, to be sure, the author herself paints the mistreatment-utopia link in nearly "magical" terms. And the text, at the very least, makes the claim that everyone is shown the kid - and, indeed, that access thereto is fairly free. I was extrapolating from the text with the info given within it.

Chaotic Neutral here. I support the revolution as a matter of principle. At the same time, however, I'm working off the perspective of the kid.

I'd honestly be interested in how the magical link works and whether it can be altered. It seems like an interesting subject and might also be the easiest way to fix things a bit.

And I mean I can understand the desire for revolution but it still seems rather extreme to say it's completely ethical for the kid to go on a murder spree the size of a city.

[The_Weirdo]

And I mean I can understand the desire for revolution but it still seems rather extreme to say it's completely ethical for the kid to go on a murder spree the size of a city.

Okay, then we can settle on a number of people the kid can kill. At which point, to quote Zim, we are haggling over price, no?

[Keltest]

Okay, then we can settle on a number of people the kid can kill. At which point, to quote Zim, we are haggling over price, no?

0. Two wrongs don't make a right. Compounding wrong upon wrong just exponentially grows the tragedy.

[The_Weirdo]

0. Two wrongs don't make a right. Compounding wrong upon wrong just exponentially grows the tragedy.

Oh, is that so? Then, maybe, the entirety of the city should be placed in prison for a goodly bit of time for child abuse and for covering it up/allowing it to go on?

[Worldsong]

Okay, then we can settle on a number of people the kid can kill. At which point, to quote Zim, we are haggling over price, no?

I never said that my idea for a revolution includes required killing. I mean yes it's certainly possible that not everyone will survive but by far my preferred outcome would be if everyone came out of that revolution alive and in a decent state.

That I'm willing to accept that we aren't going to get a perfect victory is not the same as saying it's morally just to commit mass murder. One is the reluctant admission that you can't have everything and the other is a free ticket to killing anyone who crossed you.

[The_Weirdo]

I never said that my idea for a revolution includes required killing. I mean yes it's certainly possible that not everyone will survive but by far my preferred outcome would be if everyone came out of that revolution alive and in a decent state.

That I'm willing to accept that we aren't going to get a perfect victory is not the same as saying it's morally just to commit mass murder. One is the reluctant admission that you can't have everything and the other is a free ticket to killing anyone who crossed you.

Again, what I'm wondering at this point is, yes, what would be enough punishment for the people of the utopia that ruined the child's life.

[Keltest]

Oh, is that so? Then, maybe, the entirety of the city should be placed in prison for a goodly bit of time for child abuse and for covering it up/allowing it to go on?

As a general rule, assume that I will reject out of hand any "solution" that is simply total societal meltdown in disguise. In this case especially, the scope of the problem is large enough that "repair the damage" takes major priority over "punish the guilty."

[Worldsong]

Again, what I'm wondering at this point is, yes, what would be enough punishment for the people of the utopia that ruined the child's life.

That question assumes that punishment is a must. If there was any reason for there to be punishment it would be to warn them against trying to recreate their utopia, and if the utopia system works in such a way that once's it's broken it's broken forever that would probably be redundant.

EDIT: To put it otherwise, I believe that ethically speaking punishment should be handled very carefully. Rehabilitation is far and away more preferable.

[zimmerwald1915]

Again, what I'm wondering at this point is, yes, what would be enough punishment for the people of the utopia that ruined the child's life.

I mean, if their way of life is irrevocably disrupted they're likely to die out in short order, no?

[The_Weirdo]

I mean, if their way of life is irrevocably disrupted they're likely to die out in short order, no?

How do you figure? Their society went from "perfect" to "more or less like ours", not from "perfect" to "Mad Max". o_O

As a general rule, assume that I will reject out of hand any "solution" that is simply total societal meltdown in disguise. In this case especially, the scope of the problem is large enough that "repair the damage" takes major priority over "punish the guilty."

You can't repair societal damage without punishing the guilty for it, or the guilty will reinsert their narrative into society and, oh, some years down the line, place someone like them in power again. But, hey, I offered the idea of punishing them as civilized locations punish any such forms of abuse. Yes? Why is it wrong, then? Or are even the laws of fairly enlightened places Chaotic Evil or something?

That question assumes that punishment is a must. If there was any reason for there to be punishment it would be to warn them against trying to recreate their utopia, and if the utopia system works in such a way that once's it's broken it's broken forever that would probably be redundant.

EDIT: To put it otherwise, I believe that ethically speaking punishment should be handled very carefully. Rehabilitation is far and away more preferable.

Well, there is also the reason of satisfying the kid that justice is a thing.

[zimmerwald1915]

How do you figure? Their society went from "perfect" to "more or less like ours", not from "perfect" to "Mad Max". o_O

Goodness, can you imagine trying to acclimatize to late capitalism without having been socialized in it from birth? If you didn't go mad you'd make like a Foxconn worker from the crushing inhumanness of it all.

[The_Weirdo]

Goodness, can you imagine trying to acclimatize to late capitalism without having been socialized in it from birth? If you didn't go mad you'd make like a Foxconn worker from the crushing inhumanness of it all.

Thanks. I needed that.

[Worldsong]

How do you figure? Their society went from "perfect" to "more or less like ours", not from "perfect" to "Mad Max". o_O

You can't repair societal damage without punishing the guilty for it, or the guilty will reinsert their narrative into society and, oh, some years down the line, place someone like them in power again. But, hey, I offered the idea of punishing them as civilized locations punish any such forms of abuse. Yes? Why is it wrong, then? Or are even the laws of fairly enlightened places Chaotic Evil or something?

Well, there is also the reason of satisfying the kid that justice is a thing.

For someone who's used to utopia our society might be pretty poor quality. That said I feel like the whole 'Miserable child creates utopia' power is so odd and illogical that it's kind of hard to guess at how it affects people living within that utopia or what would happen if that power was broken.

As for the kid gaining satisfaction... I think it'd be better for the kid to learn to appreciate their new life of happiness. Actually the best option might be to leave town with the kid since I think memories of their past might make it an uncomfortable place to live even after the utopia has been overthrown, and I don't think revenge would make it less uncomfortable.

EDIT: admittedly I'm not saying that punishment is completely out of the question, but it would have to be humane punishment. You could call that haggling for the right price but the original suggestion of slaughtering all the citizens is so extreme and out there that I don't think it counts as the same ballpark to say that the citizens might need to provide some compensation or be shown that such a system won't be tolerated.

[Wysper]

Hilga didn't do ANYTHING. She only cast Flame Strike once onscreen. Doesn't show her buffing anyone. Damn unreliable NPCs.
Hopefully she at least buffed some folks somehow.

[The_Weirdo]

Hilga didn't do ANYTHING. She only cast Flame Strike once onscreen. Doesn't show her buffing anyone. Damn unreliable NPCs.
Hopefully she at least buffed some folks somehow.

Well, in her defense, we are talking about a Flame Strike that can insta-kill a high-level Dwarven Cleric...

[Rogar Demonblud]

Hilga didn't do ANYTHING. She only cast Flame Strike once onscreen. Doesn't show her buffing anyone. Damn unreliable NPCs.
Hopefully she at least buffed some folks somehow.

The closest we've seen her come to helping someone without there being drawn weapons present was when she used a couple charges from a wand. Odds of her doing something useful here approach 0%.

[The_Weirdo]

The closest we've seen her come to helping someone without there being drawn weapons present was when she used a couple charges from a wand. Odds of her doing something useful here approach 0%.

The multicolored even-toed ungulates beg to differ.

What is the amount of collective punishment that would ensure your own personal utopia?

We might veer into banned subject matters if I answered that. So I won't.

[Deliverance]

Hilga didn't do ANYTHING. She only cast Flame Strike once onscreen. Doesn't show her buffing anyone. Damn unreliable NPCs.
Hopefully she at least buffed some folks somehow.

She did quite a lot.

First Hilgja scryed on the vampires to set up their scry & die attack, a revolutionary approach contrary to standard OOTS practice.

She buffed protection from law with a wand prior to combat to protect against the vampires' hypnotic gaze. We saw this.

Then she summoned chaos giraffes.

V and familiar were warded against physical attacks and energy drain; former would be V's stoneskin, the latter was either Hilgja buffing V death ward off-screen or V somehow getting access to a plot-important protection that the order otherwise only had from Durkon after extensive research, without informing us earlier that V had acquired it. So the money is on Hilgja.

The she cast chaos hammer on V & spawn, fought spawn in melee, and cast an empowered flame strike.

Since we've seen Hilja buff the order with at least one spell (protection from law on all members, despite us only seeing her do it once, so she must have done more offscreen) and can be pretty sure that she's also the source of death ward, I think she should be granted the same "most buffing appears offscreen because it isn't interesting" license that applies to the OOTS itself.

[Rrmcklin]

She did quite a lot.

First Hilgja scryed on the vampires to set up their scry & die attack, a revolutionary approach contrary to standard OOTS practice.

She buffed protection from law with a wand prior to combat to protect against the vampires' hypnotic gaze. We saw this.

Then she summoned chaos giraffes.

V and familiar were warded against physical attacks and energy drain; former would be V's stoneskin, the latter was either Hilgja buffing V death ward off-screen or V somehow getting access to a plot-important protection that the order otherwise only had from Durkon after extensive research, without informing us earlier that V had acquired it. So the money is on Hilgja.

The she cast chaos hammer on V & spawn, fought spawn in melee, and cast an empowered flame strike.

Since we've seen Hilja buff the order with at least one spell (protection from law on all members, despite us only seeing her do it once, so she must have done more offscreen) and can be pretty sure that she's also the source of death ward, I think she should be granted the same "most buffing appears offscreen because it isn't interesting" license that applies to the OOTS itself.

I believe the point is that Hilgya has done basically nothing in this current, ongoing battle. Which is pertinent, since she prefaces her leaving by saying she put in a "solid" effort. The point being made is, no, she didn't.

And given that Hilgya has been very open about how uninteresting she finds this part, and also her general demeanor, she is not owed the benefit of the doubt that she actually contributed significantly and we just haven't seen it.

[The_Weirdo]

I believe the point is that Hilgya has done basically nothing in this current, ongoing battle. Which is pertinent, since she prefaces her leaving by saying she put in a "solid" effort. The point being made is, no, she didn't.

And given that Hilgya has been very open about how uninterested she's considered this part, and also her general demeanor, she is not owed the benefit of the doubt that she actually contributed significantly and we just haven't seen it.

Oh, to be sure, "solid effort" means "I'm completely indifferent about this and I'm leaving" in this context. In that battle, indeed, she didn't give it a solid effort at all. Her mind seems to be very much focused on Kudzu from the start.

The "solid effort" bit is pretty much a placeholder. Might as well be: "Well, good luck to you all, I'm leaving." or "This ain't my fight, toodles." or anything either more or less tactful.

[brian 333]

Sounds more like a freshman psychology hypothetical than a basis for a functional society, but I'll take a stab at it:

In liberating the one from injustice you condemn many more to injustice, and this passes for the ethical solution for you?

Freeing one slave by enslaving everyone else is not a moral victory. The proposed solution fails to fix the problem and only makes it worse, and therefore is less ethical than doing nothing.

Like all either-or hypotheticals, the offered solutions are both wrong, and some third thing is more correct.