Our Responsibility when Faced by Injustice

Our Responsibility when Faced by Injustice

            Injustice proves essential where it is pertinent in Guin’s narrative, where Omelas subject the child to suffering so they can continue being happy. Injustice is, however, dominant, and it should get addressed one way or another. It is in this regard that Guin suggests that people should not embrace violence and should take responsibility to solve injustice cases. Omelas allowing the child to suffer is different than in real life where people would prefer assisting the victim even mildly.

Le Guin’s Thoughts on Responsibility

Le Guin looks into Omela and how it handles an injustice case in addition to providing insights on the predicaments of the young child. ‘To embrace violence is to lose hold of everything else’ (Guin 1257). The statement implies the author’s efforts to reveal that in the face of injustice, people should make it their resolve to solve the issue fast. Failure to find solutions and turn a blind eye affects efficiency in broader society and only leads to further losses. Responsibility should be upheld without resorting to other means, such as embracing violence. It is only right to admit that the concept of embracing violence, as illustrated in the narration does not only explore fights with soldiers but can also be emotional or mental. Although the child promises to be good if it gets allowed to stay at a better place, ‘They never listen’ (Guin 1259). On Guin’s part, this amounts to ignorance when the people of Omela do not pay heed to the suffering of another. It is another way of avoiding responsibility when they should be finding ways of helping the locked child. Although it seems like an imbecile, it would appreciate little warmth and a place away from the filth.

The extents of accepting responsibility for Guin require that Omelas look into their selfishness and strive to bear the minimum. However, the issue comes in when ‘not even be a kind word spoken to the child’ (Guin 1260). The terms appear strict, and the author recognizes that taking responsibility becomes a problem. However, Guin reiterates on continued selfishness among those in Omela. The people of Omela live in happiness while subjecting the child to anguish. The child survives on corn while others live well. While some people shed tears after visiting it in the darkroom, this is the much they go to show responsibility. An excellent show of selfishness is where the suffering boy gets compared to the other who is playing the flute. If the boy were not suffering, ‘the flute-player, could make no joyful music’ (Guin 1260). From the author’s tone, it suggests that subjecting a ten-year-old to suffering to allow other people, including adults, to experience joy from a flute is an epitome of injustice and inadequate taking of responsibility. In other cases, others prefer to leave their problem to go to an unknown place which may be less imaginable. Facing one’s responsibilities appears to be the best option, according to Guin. Hence, people should take responsibility by avoiding violence and sacrificing part of the happiness to reduce misery on others.

How People in Real World React to Injustice

People in the world react to injustices in various, including third parties who witness crimes, and most prefer compensation rather than argument. Guin seems to prefer people taking direct responsibility for their actions. This would mean not resorting to violence, which may mean not punishing Omelas, who bestowed suffering on the child. The real world operates differently, especially where third parties preferred compensation when in a dictator game. A research was done by Doorn and Brouwers, who found a case where a subject (dictator) gave a bribe to another party (66). In the process, a third party viewed the transaction and noticed that it would be necessary to exert punishment on the dictator. However, in every bribery case, there exists a victim who may be the recipient. The third has options of reacting to the injustice and punish the dictator or make the victim feel better. Many preferred the latter because it helped them compensate as they would be seen as upright, good friends, and caring (Doorn and Brouwers 66). In the real world, people react to injustices by looking into how they would gain in the process. This reflects Guin’s perspective where Omelas prefer to proceed with their happiness even if it means that young children will suffer and have a protruding stomach. The case is likely to occur in the real world, but some would assist the victim.

Conclusion

In conclusion, taking responsibility in the face of justice proves essential, although Omelas avoid this and allow the child in the darkroom to continue suffering while in the real world, one would prefer making the situation of the victim better. Our responsibility should be to identify cases of injustice and face the same. This implies that people that are aware of crimes should bring them to light and punish the perpetrators if need be. The aim should be to improve the state of the victim and create an environment where such suffering will not happen again.

Works Cited

Doorn, Janne V., and Brouwer Lieve. Third-Party Responses to Injustice: A Review on the Preference for Compensation. Crime Psychology Review, vol. 3, no. 1, 2017, pp. 59-77.

Guin, Ursula K. L. The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas. New Dimensions, 1973.