The issue of inequality in society has recently become an increasingly important one. As income inequality has continued to increase in the world, many individuals have questioned if this is fair or not. Furthermore, they suggest that income inequality is the source of many evils in society today. Many individuals argue that inequality is not only harmful to society, but it is also unnecessary. I would argue that inequality is necessary in some societies. It depends upon how the society developed; societies that focus on society as a whole do not need inequality. However, societies that focus on the rights of the individual, such as American society and most of Western society, do require some inequality. Without it, the rights of the person would be lost. However, inequality should be tamed to a degree that some do not live in abject misery.
In the short story, a parable, called “The Ones who Walk Away from the Omelas” by Urusla K. Le Guin, one person is forced to live in abject misery. Tragically, this person is a child. He is forced to live in abject misery, filth and poverty in order to ensure the lifestyles of the other Omelas. Everyone is told of this child upon reaching an acceptable age. Most of the members of the society accept this after some initial anger and sadness. However, not all of them do. Some of them walk away from the village, never to return. It is not known where they go. The story is an interesting parable about inequality in society.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Inequality in Society".
Inequality in society is a difficult topic. It appears that in this society, there must be inequality of one to ensure the happiness of the rest. However, this is not how society actually works. In this society, everyone appears to follow a certain order of things. It appears as if the members of society all live by certain rules and obligations. While this is true for all societies, it tends to be truer for some than for others. This will be explained in the following section. In the story, the members of the society appeared to follow mindlessly the rules of society. “All smiles have become archaic” (Le Guin 1). The members of society, while described as intellectual, actually appeared to give up the right to live their own lives.
By all means, some societies are more likely to all follow a similar path than others. Societies that were raised with the focus on the communal good and the community are more likely to be equal than those that were not. Equality, as it is, requires everyone to give up something. Members of a communal society are taught from the earliest moments of their lives about their communal roles and responsibilities. These children are taught to focus on the good of society; they work hard to achieve a specific level of comfort and happiness for everyone within their community. This, of course, is not how western societies, including America, run. These societies require a certain level of inequality.
By all means, no one wants to see someone live in abject poverty and misery such as in this story. However, in societies in which the focus is the individual, not everyone will work as hard as others. When people are taught from childhood that they should fulfill their own dreams and destinies, the individuality of the person thrives. For some individuals, this will be a lifetime of hard work and achievement. These individuals will likely achieve a comfortable standard of living. However, others realize that they are likely to be happy accomplishing very little. The sad reality in American society is that some people are lazy. This may be their comfort level. They may learn this behavior from their parents or other influential individuals in their lives. However, they will not work anymore than they absolutely must. The person who works twelve to sixteen hours a day may do this simply because he or she wants to achieve a greater level of financial success. Both reflect the desires of the individual, as well as the duties the individual has accepted. If both individuals have grown up in a communal society, both would have learned that there is a minimum amount of work expected from the person. Both would therefore engage in this minimal amount of work. The sad reality is though, that individuals have various ethics. These various work ethics reflect inequality in society. Those who work harder are rewarded. There is nothing wrong with this idea. It has been postulated by many that the reason Marxism failed was because the Marxist rulers never accounted for individual differences in the person.
Of course, society should ensure a basic quality of life for the person. No one should accept another person who lives with a “mass of festered sores” (Le Guin 5). This is, of course, appalling and unacceptable. Obviously, the story is meant to be a parable for those who live in luxury of developed countries and those who live in the lesser developed countries (LDCs) of the world. By all means, one can argue that poverty in some countries can be attributed towards the growth of wealth in others. This, unfortunately, is an oversimplification of the issue.
Overpopulation is a problem. Governments that abuse their people have been a problem. For instance, Haiti’s problems have long been attributed to the government. This is an internal problem, not a global one. It is always tragic to see how people live in some countries. Unfortunately, the western world cannot solve all of these problems. Inequality within a specific country needs to be examined within the context of that country. For instance, countries that have chosen capitalism have also taught people that greater work should equal greater reward. If people choose not to engage in this system, they should have a basic quality of life. They should not, of course, live in squalor. But one cannot compare America and Haiti. The problems related to the inequality in both societies reflect the culture and government of both societies. This must be considered as part of the issue.
The story considered is an interesting parable. However, it is not a complete one. It would be more complete if one understood how neighboring communities live. Furthermore, the people within the society appear to have given up the individuality. This is not acceptable in some countries.
