Both of these stories teach the same lesson: one must suffer for the good of the rest. I had read The Lottery before, so the ending was not much of a surprise. But this time I took notice to Old Man Walker’s opinion on the lottery tradition. Upon hearing that other towns have abandoned the tradition or changed it slightly, he was disappointed. He even said, “There’s always been a lottery” (pp. 32). This made me think, sure there has always been one, but is it still right? We have talked a lot about voting in class and how the popular vote more and more does not match the electoral college vote in presidential elections. This system has always been in place. But is it failing in modern day politics, so much so that it would be okay to rethink the system?
The tale of Omelas’s theme reminded me more of the trolley effect we have talked about in class. When the town thinks about changing their tradition and releasing the child from the darkness, they believe it would ruin all of the happiness of the city. That “to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one” wouldn’t make sense. In the case of the trolley problem, it is not common for one to decide to save one life over five because of mere numbers. If thousands are to benefit, it would seem extreme to save one life. But does that still make it alright to lock a child away?
I also had the same question about the justification of keeping the child locked away, and how it seems to follow the trolley problem. I wonder what the critical difference was for the people who walked away from Omelas was and what they were walking towards?
The Omelas story also reminds me of the trolley effect. If the child being released truly would ruin the happiness for thousands then it only seems right to keep the child locked away for the sake of others even though it is inhumane.