Is Ignorance Bliss? Examining The Giver's Society

  • Thread starter Blahness
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ignorance
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of a society like the one depicted in the book The Giver, where everything is equalized and emotions are suppressed. The society is controlled by a Committee and people have assigned roles, but they have no freedom or individuality. The conversation raises questions about the morality of such a society and whether it would be considered "wrong" to give up uniqueness and emotions for sameness and stability. The conversation also brings up other works of fiction that explore similar themes and the potential issues with implementing and maintaining such a society. Overall, the consensus is that this type of society would be wrong, as it would strip people of their humanity and individuality.
  • #1
Blahness
113
0
Would something straight out of The Giver, an equalized, perfect, emotionless society, be "wrong"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Blahness said:
Would something straight out of The Giver, an equalized, perfect, emotionless society, be "wrong"?
Can you please elaborate on this? What is The Giver? What exactly is meant by equalized, perfect and emotionless? What do you take to be "wrong"?
 
  • #3
Are you referring to this, the children's book by Lois Lowry? If so, you might want to give us some plot summary and rudimentary details regarding how their society is set up, if you wish us to evaluate it.
 
  • #4
I'm sorry, let me be more specific.

In The Giver, everyone has a role in society, which is decided by a Comittee, and everything is fine. No pain(Pain neutralizers), no colors, no hills, no valleys, no rivers, nothing but sun, no extreme emotions(No HATE or LOVE[They said that love was a meaningless and overgeneralized term]), very few variations in daily life, no sex(A "pill" that removes sexual urges is given to all, who take it once a day), no disease, no real entertainment, no pursuit of knowledge or happiness, no true uniqueness. There are "birthmothers", who give birth to test-tube babies(i'm guessing), and they have 3 children, 1ce a year, then work in Labor for the rest of their life. The children are all nursed until the start of the next year, when they have a gathering of all age groups under 12. At these gatherings, the 11s become 12s and so on. The babies are named at this gathering and given to a predetermined family unit, and are raised by the family unit. However, babies judged "inferior" are Released, or lethally injected and disposed. However, no one cares, because of a lack of knowledge of death. The baby grows to be a 3, where they are being taught how to speak and use proper grammar. They are STRICTLY taught, with a wand-type stick being used for infractions. They feel slight pain, but not much. At the age of 6, they learn about all the job opprotunities. At the age of 9, each kid gets a bycicle, and is to use only his/her bycicle. They also start doing community work, which helps the Committee choose who goes where. (Note: There is no true leader, however. A group of people lead, and they change who leads every so many years. They are under Sameness as well.) At the age of 12, age stops mattering, and the people are sent to their jobs. Jobs are chosen carefully, so this doesn't happen often, but if a person does not like their job, they can be Released. They work every day, and can get a Spouse. No sex, remember? The Spouses are chosen carefully, so they balance out. They can care for kids. Once they get old, they go to the Old Folks Home(forgot exact name, but something like that), and are cared for until the Grand Release, where they are released with all of their life story told. That is a happy time.

Anyway, would it be right, or wrong, to give up uniqueness for sameness, happiness to remove sadness, and become a mostly emotionless society?
 
  • #5
I think it would be pointless/wrong because I would see no point of existence then. What would be the point of living?
 
  • #6
I liked The Giver it is a great book. I think there are movies similar to that (Brave New World, Equilibrium, Logan's Run, 1984, etc). I'm not sure if this type of society would ever exist or become to exist. I think it would be practically impossible to implement and maintain
 
  • #7
Well, issues of practical implementation may as well be ignored for our purposes, since he's only asking whether or not such a society would be wrong. Of course this is going to depend on the perspective of ethics that we view the society from. Personally, I tend to be a big advocate of individual rights, so any society such as this, in which a good deal of freedom is taken away for purposes other than keeping people from physically harming one another or breaking contracts, just doesn't seem right to me. I suppose that means that I think such a society would be wrong.

Presumably, the engineers of the Giver world are taking some form of consequentialist position based on the pleasure/pain principle: maximizing the former and minimizing the latter. Even then, however, there seems to be a complete ignoring of the maximizing of pleasure, and all they're doing is minimizing pain. I suppose that if you think it's worth it to do that, then go ahead and live your life on lithium in handcuffs. I still don't think any society can ever rightfully force people to neuter their own humanity just to avoid hurting themselves.

This is approached in the recent film Serenity. I don't know if any of you have seen it.
 
  • #8
I loved that book. I read it twice...>.< But at least I was able to understand it perfectly. But I disagree that this type of society is good. It creates a system that people have no choice or opinion. People lose their humanity. You may as well be a plant, and do the same thing day in, and day out. You have no freedom to move about. You are forever bound to your planter, where people come and water you everyday. You would have no trials or tribulations in life. An analogy would be like you having the exact amount of water in your plant vacuoles. There are never times where you wilt for a little bit, and you never have an over abundance.

Plus, if they "released" (killed) people as often as they did, there population would probably fizzle out. Jonas's poor sister...:cry:
 
  • #9
I certainly wouldn't want to live in that society.
 
  • #10
I am brave enough to say that this scenario is wrong because it is impossible. There could never be an equalized, perfect, emotionless society, because society is not culprit. Why? Because the components of that society, the people with changing DNA sequences even among a non-changing environment are bound to mutate eventually, causing disturbance in the equilibrium. "Life" will never change (or I should say always changes!) "It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness." - Leo Tolstoy
 
  • #11
note: the "unchanged/changeless" is also present in the "changing"... else how could there be the recognition of transiency?
 
  • #12
So the general consensus is that a "perfect" emotionless society would be wrong.

Thank you.
 
  • #13
pain and pleasure complement each other, the wider their separated when you experience them makes life that much more relevant.
 
  • #14
Mmmmmm... pleasure and pain.
 

1. What is the concept of "Ignorance is Bliss" in The Giver's society?

In The Giver's society, the concept of "Ignorance is Bliss" refers to the idea that the citizens are kept ignorant of the harsh realities of the world in order to maintain peace and order. This is achieved through the suppression of emotions, memories, and individuality.

2. How does the society in The Giver control and manipulate its citizens?

The society in The Giver controls and manipulates its citizens through various means such as the suppression of emotions and memories, strict rules and regulations, and the assignment of roles and responsibilities. They also use technology, such as the daily injections that suppress emotions, to maintain control over the citizens.

3. What are the consequences of living in a society where ignorance is considered bliss?

The consequences of living in a society where ignorance is considered bliss include the loss of individuality and freedom, lack of emotional depth and connection with others, and the inability to understand and cope with the realities of the world. It also leads to a stagnant and controlled society where progress and change are discouraged.

4. How does the main character, Jonas, challenge the concept of "Ignorance is Bliss" in The Giver's society?

Jonas challenges the concept of "Ignorance is Bliss" by questioning the rules and regulations of the society and seeking knowledge and truth. He also starts to experience emotions and memories, which were previously suppressed, and realizes the importance of these aspects of life. Ultimately, he chooses to leave the society and embrace the unknown, challenging the idea that ignorance is the key to happiness.

5. What are some real-life examples of societies that value ignorance over knowledge?

Some real-life examples of societies that value ignorance over knowledge include authoritarian regimes that suppress information and control the media, cults that isolate their members from the outside world and restrict access to information, and societies where education and critical thinking are not encouraged or accessible. These societies often use fear and manipulation to maintain control over their citizens.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
168
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
89
Views
12K
Back
Top