Imagine a perfect place. This place has no crimes, no slanted government officials, no one walking the streets. A town were everyone is happy and no one ever has a need to complain. However, "'In a basement under one of the beautiful public buildings of Omelas, or perhaps in the cellar of one of it s spacious private homes, there is a room. It has one locked door, and no window.' And in this room sits a child. The child is feeble-minded, malnourished, and neglected. It lives out its days in wretched misery." The residents of Omelas know that the boy is there. They also know that the minute this boy is saved, the very moment his body touches the sunlight, all of their happiness will be taken away. Everything they ever owned and anything that ever brought them pleasure will be taken, so they pretend the boy doesn't exist.
What do you think is the right thing to do? Would you leave the boy for the sake of everyone else? Or would you save this boy and as a consequence have everyone else suffer?
This scenario is from a short story called "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin. It is basically about the people in town who suddenly become aware of this boy's existence. These people are tortured with the guilt of not saving the child, but they are fearful of the consequences. Rather than living with the guilt, they leave town.
The story is basically a clash between ethics. If looked upon from a utilitarian point of view (the greatest happiness for the most) then leaving the boy there is the right decision. If looked upon from Aristotle's virtue ethic (doing the right thing will give the greatest happiness) then helping the child is the right thing to do.
If you apply a Christian world view into this equation is is fairly obvious which ethic we would most agree with. It is simple to conclude "well, I didn't directly cause their unhappiness so no sweat off my brow." But, if thought about more closely you are essentially stealing their happiness away. You wouldn't want someone else to make you unhappy would you?
Now, lets take these principles and add human lives into the equation.
Lets say there is a suspected terrorist in our custody. It is fairly certain he has bombs located in populated areas, but he won't disclose their locations. Is it right to torture this man to save thousands of lives?
Imagine if the Pope was the interrogator. I can't imagine he practices his back-hand or has much experience in water-torture, but if he were the person to make this decision do you think he would be able to? Or would he be like the few from Omelas and walk away from the situation altogether?
Should the Pope have a moral obligation not to harm the terrorist despite the consequences? Or is his moral obligation to save those people despite the cost?
In those types of situations the difference between right and wrong is in a grey area. Believe it or not, this issue is involved in more issues than you might think, including abortion in America.
Catholics take the position of the virtue ethic: it is never right to have an abortion. They believe they are morally just. While everyone else generally agrees that it is right to have an abortion because the mother's quality of life would be damaged, the baby isn't really alive, or because it is a woman's right to have control over her body. They too, believe they are morally just.
Think back to the short story about the boy for a minute. Imagine that the boy is the decision to make abortion illegal. The people in town are enjoying the freedom that comes with allowing abortion. Figuratively speaking, lets say you make the decision to bring this boy into the sunlight. No longer can the people of Omelas enjoy the benefits. They've been cheated.
If you asked a pro-choice man why he is that way he will most likely say "because it is a woman's right". We can conclude he is pro-choice because it benefits other people. If you asked a pro-choice woman why she is that way she will probably say "because I want the freedom to choose when I have a baby." She is pro-choice because it benefits her and other women. They chose the utilitarian ethic on abortion. "Allowing abortion makes me and others happy and it is what society agrees with, so I will be pro-choice too."
If you asked a pro-life man or women why they are that way they both will say "because it is never right to kill a baby in the womb." They choose a virtue ethic.
The issue has never been about right and wrong. People from both views think they are morally just. The question I want to ask is, can a Christian worldview ever dominate a society bent on utilitarianism? Is what Christians believe to be right the decision best for everyone else?
What do you think is the right thing to do? Would you leave the boy for the sake of everyone else? Or would you save this boy and as a consequence have everyone else suffer?
This scenario is from a short story called "The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin. It is basically about the people in town who suddenly become aware of this boy's existence. These people are tortured with the guilt of not saving the child, but they are fearful of the consequences. Rather than living with the guilt, they leave town.
The story is basically a clash between ethics. If looked upon from a utilitarian point of view (the greatest happiness for the most) then leaving the boy there is the right decision. If looked upon from Aristotle's virtue ethic (doing the right thing will give the greatest happiness) then helping the child is the right thing to do.
If you apply a Christian world view into this equation is is fairly obvious which ethic we would most agree with. It is simple to conclude "well, I didn't directly cause their unhappiness so no sweat off my brow." But, if thought about more closely you are essentially stealing their happiness away. You wouldn't want someone else to make you unhappy would you?
Now, lets take these principles and add human lives into the equation.
Lets say there is a suspected terrorist in our custody. It is fairly certain he has bombs located in populated areas, but he won't disclose their locations. Is it right to torture this man to save thousands of lives?
Imagine if the Pope was the interrogator. I can't imagine he practices his back-hand or has much experience in water-torture, but if he were the person to make this decision do you think he would be able to? Or would he be like the few from Omelas and walk away from the situation altogether?
Should the Pope have a moral obligation not to harm the terrorist despite the consequences? Or is his moral obligation to save those people despite the cost?
In those types of situations the difference between right and wrong is in a grey area. Believe it or not, this issue is involved in more issues than you might think, including abortion in America.
Catholics take the position of the virtue ethic: it is never right to have an abortion. They believe they are morally just. While everyone else generally agrees that it is right to have an abortion because the mother's quality of life would be damaged, the baby isn't really alive, or because it is a woman's right to have control over her body. They too, believe they are morally just.
Think back to the short story about the boy for a minute. Imagine that the boy is the decision to make abortion illegal. The people in town are enjoying the freedom that comes with allowing abortion. Figuratively speaking, lets say you make the decision to bring this boy into the sunlight. No longer can the people of Omelas enjoy the benefits. They've been cheated.
If you asked a pro-choice man why he is that way he will most likely say "because it is a woman's right". We can conclude he is pro-choice because it benefits other people. If you asked a pro-choice woman why she is that way she will probably say "because I want the freedom to choose when I have a baby." She is pro-choice because it benefits her and other women. They chose the utilitarian ethic on abortion. "Allowing abortion makes me and others happy and it is what society agrees with, so I will be pro-choice too."
If you asked a pro-life man or women why they are that way they both will say "because it is never right to kill a baby in the womb." They choose a virtue ethic.
The issue has never been about right and wrong. People from both views think they are morally just. The question I want to ask is, can a Christian worldview ever dominate a society bent on utilitarianism? Is what Christians believe to be right the decision best for everyone else?
They asked me to tell you what it was like to be twenty and pregnant in 1950 and when you tell your boyfriend you’re pregnant, he tells you about a friend of his in the army whose girl told him she was pregnant, so he got all his buddies to come and say, “We all fucked her, so who knows who the father is?” And he laughs at the good joke….
ReplyDeleteWhat was it like, if you were planning to go to graduate school and get a degree and earn a living so you could support yourself and do the work you loved—what it was like to be a senior at Radcliffe and pregnant and if you bore this child, this child which the law demanded you bear and would then call “unlawful,” “illegitimate,” this child whose father denied it … What was it like? […]
It’s like this: if I had dropped out of college, thrown away my education, depended on my parents … if I had done all that, which is what the anti-abortion people want me to have done, I would have borne a child for them, … the authorities, the theorists, the fundamentalists; I would have born a child for them, their child.
But I would not have born my own first child, or second child, or third child. My children.
The life of that fetus would have prevented, would have aborted, three other fetuses … the three wanted children, the three I had with my husband—whom, if I had not aborted the unwanted one, I would never have met … I would have been an “unwed mother” of a three-year-old in California, without work, with half an education, living off her parents….
But it is the children I have to come back to, my children Elisabeth, Caroline, Theodore, my joy, my pride, my loves. If I had not broken the law and aborted that life nobody wanted, they would have been aborted by a cruel, bigoted, and senseless law. They would never have been born. This thought I cannot bear.
What was it like, in the Dark Ages when abortion was a crime, for the girl whose dad couldn’t borrow cash, as my dad could? What was it like for the girl who couldn’t even tell her dad, because he would go crazy with shame and rage? Who couldn’t tell her mother? Who had to go alone to that filthy room and put herself body and soul into the hands of a professional criminal? – because that is what every doctor who did an abortion was, whether he was an extortionist or an idealist.
You know what it was like for her. You know and I know; that is why we are here. We are not going back to the Dark Ages. We are not going to let anybody in this country have that kind of power over any girl or woman. There are great powers, outside the government and in it, trying to legislate the return of darkness. We are not great powers. But we are the light. Nobody can put us out. May all of you shine very bright and steady, today and always.
Ursula K. Le Guin