I like "gamer brain", I get the feeling you're referring to the same thing I am when I say it's rejecting utilitarianism; but the depiction of Omelas isn't so much as holding a philosophical position as a mindset. "Gamer brain": to defeat suffering we have the system that requires 1 child suffering.
That's definitely wrong. The people who walk away aren't doing something different with the sacrifices made for them, they're rejecting them completely.
It's a more intelligent story if it exists to attack Lockian thinking than if it exists to attack utilitarian thinking so maybe I'm being uncharitable when I prefer the latter reading. But it does seem arbitrary to say that's the specific point we're supposed to mistrust the narrator on.
They should have given that the whole death note treatment, split the dialogue over a dozen panels of the anime girls saying that to each other and eating chocolate.
It's like, would you put hundreds children chosen at random into the hole, or this one specific child but you have to meet him and look at his face and publicly take responsibility for the decision?
Hang on, isn't the story arguing for the imposition of suffering for the greater good? Those who walk away are surely making the decision to cause greater suffering.
It's about whether the greater good is utilitarian or deontological.
The Orc farmland smoldered, burned down in the wake of battle. The ground soaked in a carrot's depth of blood and ash. There was no mention of negotiation or surrender as the wastes were overseen by the architect of their very destruction.
The tips of the horseshoe don't actually touch. Sanders is much more friendly to Nazis than most people on his right, that's what horseshoe theory predicts.
The problem is that what you consider the best possible counterargumnet may not be what the person arguing with you considers the best possible counterargument.
