My argument on Ursula Le Guin’s “The ones who walk away from Omelas” was constructed using an analysis by Ted Andra, a professor at Utah State University, as a secondary source. In Andra’s argument, I noticed that he placed a majority of the focus on both on comparisons between this utopian society and our own, and how the narrator laid out the image of Omelas. Only a measly two sentences are given to address the children who turn away from Omelas, and of those two there isn’t much said about them that is original and not directly from the story. Another issue I noted was how there were quite a few notable flaws in Andra’s analysis. Coupling these two pieces of information together, I cannot accept Andra’s analysis as it is. For me to accept
…show more content…
I find this to be fairly true, but have to add that by using our perception of pain and evil, other factors must be taken into account. With every decision, there always exists negative outcomes with the possibility of positive outcomes also occurring. The negative outcomes will consist of pain for ourselves, whether be it so slight that it's unnoticeable, or so major that it is the only thing on our minds, or evil towards others, with the amplitude of it being as random as before. Regarding the positive outcomes, if they exist, they are capable of the same amplitudes as the negative outcomes, but are much more diverse description and form. Nevertheless, what matters is that those positive outcomes outweigh the negative in order for the problems generated by the negatives to be properly rationalized. This is what Le Guin was trying to write to us about. She poses the question to us in the form of a story, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of one if the one is to be burdened by more than what should be humanly possible? In my view, it's a loaded question. Answer with a “yes”, and one may be seen in a negative light as being someone who is cold hearted and uncaring. Someone who, no matter does not care for what the means are, even if they are foul beyond belief, as long as the end results are appealing. On the other hand, one who answers with a “no”, can be viewed in a negative light as being childish and unrealistic. Someone who needs to wake up and realize that not every goal can be achieved. And yet this question, despite having no great answer, is a question I believe
I find this to be fairly true, but have to add that by using our perception of pain and evil, other factors must be taken into account. With every decision, there always exists negative outcomes with the possibility of positive outcomes also occurring. The negative outcomes will consist of pain for ourselves, whether be it so slight that it's unnoticeable, or so major that it is the only thing on our minds, or evil towards others, with the amplitude of it being as random as before. Regarding the positive outcomes, if they exist, they are capable of the same amplitudes as the negative outcomes, but are much more diverse description and form. Nevertheless, what matters is that those positive outcomes outweigh the negative in order for the problems generated by the negatives to be properly rationalized. This is what Le Guin was trying to write to us about. She poses the question to us in the form of a story, do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of one if the one is to be burdened by more than what should be humanly possible? In my view, it's a loaded question. Answer with a “yes”, and one may be seen in a negative light as being someone who is cold hearted and uncaring. Someone who, no matter does not care for what the means are, even if they are foul beyond belief, as long as the end results are appealing. On the other hand, one who answers with a “no”, can be viewed in a negative light as being childish and unrealistic. Someone who needs to wake up and realize that not every goal can be achieved. And yet this question, despite having no great answer, is a question I believe