STUDENT VOICES | HONORABLE MENTION for the 2023 CHYNN ETHICS paper prize
Religion: The Opium that Soothes the Ache of Ethical Dilemma
Ursula K. LeGuin, Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Karl Marx, and Phoebe Buffay
by Sophia Cano, Fordham College Rose Hill ’25
Joey:
“Yeah, well sorry to burst that bubble, Pheebs, but selfless good deeds don’t exist. Okay?…”
Phoebe:
“…I will find a selfless good deed! ‘Cause I just gave birth to three children and I will not let
them be raised in a world where Joey is right!”
(“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS” 00:04:27, 00:08:11)
Phoebe Buffay, I, too, lament the future of your triplets: destined to grow up in a wretched world where Joey Tribianni’s inadvertent wisdom rings true. However, there is no denying the fact of his claim that “Selfless good deeds don’t exist” (“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS”). And, Phoebe, I am sorry for such harsh scrutiny (though done in the name of academic inquiry), but what “good” is your vegetarianism actually serving? Is abstaining from meat truly contributing to earthly improvement? Are any esteemed, metal-straw-using, cold-shower-taking, strictly-second-hand-store-shopping, Fleetwood Mac-loving, vegan Phoebe-wannabes effectively making a difference in our ill-fated world? Or are we just using these acts of nonconformist “rebellion” to evade the guilt that comes with being members of an anthropocentric, capitalist society? In her provocative short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” Ursula K. Le Guin raises these questions, criticizing Phoebe, Joey, and the rest of us living within the comfort of capitalism. She calls us to reevaluate the effectiveness of our “rebellion” against capitalist evils and to reconsider our ideas of ethical righteousness.
There is a reason why Omelas’ iniquitous foundation and the ethical turmoil it excites feels disturbingly familiar: Le Guin’s parable stands as a metaphor for capitalism. While the overseas economic fellowships and trade agreements may appear to be signs of international unity and prosperity under capitalism, underlying this exchange is the gruesome truth of exploited, unpaid labor and child endangerment. This suffering is cast out of privileged minds as they indulge in the material fruits of this alienated affliction. While we chastise the people of Omelas, asking: “How can they live like this?– happily and guiltlessly, knowing that their prosperity is dependent on the merciless misery of a child?”– we should be asking ourselves: How can we live like this?– knowing that our livelihoods are dependent on the undeniably cruel exploitation of economically developing nations? Confronted by these indigestible quandaries, we search for solutions to the fable’s ethical dilemma and covertly pursue guidance to appease our own uneasy consciences. At the end of our search, it is self-sacrifice that proves to be the only ethical action that an individual can take to effectively oppose the injustice lying at the heart of Omelas.
Firstly, let’s consider: Do you stay in Omelas and attempt a provincial life? This decision justifies the child’s suffering with ignorant claims, deeming injustice as necessary for the greater good of society and for the child itself. Do you rescue the child? Le Guin explains that alleviating the suffering of the undergoer, even in the slightest, would cause societal despair. Do you walk away? To walk away is to abandon the child, allowing the immorality to persist, unrefuted. Or do you sacrifice yourself– taking the child’s place and subjecting yourself to the vile existence of the undergoer? While this course of action does not align with the primitive survival instinct of self-preservation, many philosophical and religious ethical teachings provide moral justification for self-sacrifice through their prioritization of heightened preternatural understanding over corporeal matters.
In light of this, we must acknowledge the profound weight of sacrifice. There is record in the Bible of the Christian Savior Jesus Christ praying to God before he was to sacrifice himself for the salvation of humankind; he pleaded for God to grant him the strength to overcome his fear of suffering and death, for even Jesus valued his earthly existence (Matt. 36:29). The Bible teaches that Jesus continued despite his fear, sacrificing his life to inherit the suffering of man, and therefore, granting us our freedom from sin (Matt. 20:28). Just as Christian Scripture instructs us “to walk in the same way in which he walked,” we are called to practice the selfless, nonviolent ways of Jesus Christ (1 John 2:6). The ultimate way of doing so, is in offering ourselves up to take on the suffering of the meek, anguished child of Omelas, to grant the child their deserved freedom. In this way, self-sacrifice is the best course of action for upholding the ethical values of nonviolence and selflessness while effectively inciting change by disrupting the cycle of perpetuated injustice.
While coming from nearly opposite ends of the spectrum of world religions, Christianity and Buddhism share the common ethical values of beneficence and respect for life. The core of all Buddhisms holds the value of ahiṃsā, or the principle of “non-harming” and “inviolability of life,” that guides perennial respect for every individual’s existence; each life holds the potential to achieve enlightenment in the same way that the Buddha did (Keown 30, 107). The right of every life to explore this potential must be safeguarded from evils that violate and oppress this potentiality (Keown 112). In accordance with this standard of justice, the only ethical action that could be taken to counter the injustice of Omelas society would be to rescue or to take the child’s place, for leaving Omelas would fail to defend the right of the child to live freely and explore their potential. In Buddhist ethics, the cardinal determinant of ethical judgment is the intention underlying a choice and how it is expressed in action. Moral goodness can be seen in benevolent intentions that are expressed in “right” action, which is characterized by doing “no harm to either oneself or others” (Keown 56). Would this mean that rescuing the child and causing societal despair is ethically justified by good intentions of defending the child’s freedom? Is self-sacrifice immoral because it causes harm to oneself? In his book Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction, Damien Keown answers that “Making progress to enlightenment…is not simply a matter of having good intentions…evil is sometimes done by people who act from the highest motives. Good intentions…must find expression in right actions” (56). The only right action that can express the intention of saving the child is self-sacrifice, for this minimizes suffering while still maintaining ahiṃsā. Moreover, subjecting the self to a quiet, solitary existence is the ultimate way of expressing arāga, or the principle of non-attachment, and following in the Buddha’s practice of isolating the self for means of meditation, as long as these benevolent intentions are upheld (Keown 107). To this, Joey Tribbiani would remind us that these intentions are not truly as benevolent as they claim to be— but are essentially selfish. Is he right?
While the paths to attaining enlightenment and nirvana vary across Buddhisms, all align in the belief that “Through the pursuit of knowledge (paññā) and moral virtue (sīla), ignorance and selfish desire are overcome, the cause of the arising suffering is removed, and nirvana is attained” (Keown 69). Goodness and enlightenment are only achieved when pursued, as exemplified by the process of the Buddha’s becoming. This desire for achieving positive goals is called Chanda in Buddhist practice and is considered to be wholesome and benevolent, unlike the unethical motives of greed and hatred (Keown 65). With this, I accept Joey Tribbiani’s claim: these good deeds are not “selfish” in the malignant sense of greedy self-indulgence but are instead “selfish” in pursuing positive desires of improving the self and others. Self-sacrifice— with its goal of rescuing the child from a life of heinous injustice while minimizing the suffering of others— is, in fact, a selfish deed. But, it is the selfish aspirations of doing everything in our capacity to combat the injustice that makes self-sacrifice ethically sound.
If I were a citizen of Omelas, I would take the place of the condemned child. I would subject myself to a future of cornmeal and grease– looks of disgust and terror. I would do so because this is the most ethically-correct solution, as informed by religious and philosophical beliefs that helped shape my conscience. Upon hearing this, revolutionary philosopher Karl Marx would most likely look down on me, with eyes of pity peering over his beard. He would tell me that, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people”— it is the “easy” solution. Marx teaches that large-scale demolition of societal institutions is necessary to uproot the unethical existence that we are subject to under capitalism. Le Guin’s storyline uses sentiment from Marx’s ideology, in which the happy, guiltless Omela society is the bourgeoisie, whose success is solely dependent on the exploitation of alienated, unethical labor, which is characterized by the basement-bound, miserable child. What would Marx do? Would he leave? Marx’s writing suggests that he would free the child to incite societal collapse, for he grants that this is necessary in order for society to unravel and reconstruct into a new, ethical organization. However, Marx’s actions show otherwise; while he writes revolutionary ideas of grandeur that inspire new generations of political activists, sociologists, and philosophers, he concedes that he is not, in fact, “a Marxist”. He does not actively facilitate an uprising to carry out the goals of his written plan. Is this not hypocrisy? If he is so quick to convict religiously-instilled ethics, where does his system of ethical values come from? While I sit here, criticizing one of the most influential revolutionaries in philosophy, literature, and history for his lack of hypothetical active rebellion, I remember: while the solution to the ethical dilemma posed by Le Guin only requires the rebellion of a single self-sacrifice, the ethical dilemma posed by Le Guin is, in fact, fictional.
Omelas is a simplified version of our reality, translated into a digestible (though not easily) picture of green-grass fields and excrement-covered floors. It is easy enough to say that I can and would sacrifice myself for this fictional child, but what about the millions of children subjected to such misery who suffer under the same sky? What can I do? How can I live ethically? While Marx provokes a whole other slew of questions involving cultural relativism and Divine Command Theory, Le Guin simply restarts the conversation of ethics that inconspicuously went quiet: Did we forget the ugly truth? Are we trying to forget? Are we doing anything? We are reminded that no matter how many sweaters we donate to Goodwill or Coca-Cola cans we recycle, our work is never done. We will never be wholly right. We still fall asleep at night, comfortably wrapped in our blankets “MADE FROM THAILAND” in our heated houses built on stolen land.
For more information about the prize, past winners, and submission requirements for 2024, please visit the Chynn Ethics Paper Prize webpage. The deadline to submit is Friday, March 15th, 2024 and is open to ALL undergraduates.
Works Cited
Keown, Damien. Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Le Guin, Ursula K. “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” The Wind’s Twelve Quarters.
HarperCollins, 2017. http://shsdavisapes.pbworks.com/f/Omelas.pdf Marx, Karl. Contribution to The Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. 1844, Web access. http://web.pdx.edu/~tothm/religion/Marx.pdf
The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Text Edition: 2016. Crossway Bibles, 2001.https://www.biblegateway.com
“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS.” 1998. Friends: The Complete Fifth Season, created by David Crane, episode 4, Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions / Warner Bros. Television / NBC, 15 Oct. 1998.
The Ethics and Society Blog 