Omelas Moral Dilemma

The short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, written by Ursula Le Guin, is about a so-called perfect society where the sacrifice of a child is what provides harmony, equality, and prosperity to the citizens of this city. As a reader, one is invited to create and visualize their own utopia, so that one is emerged with the reality of a moral dilemma: the happiness of many for the unhappiness of one. The symbol represented in the story reflects current and past society issues such as military sacrifice, slavery, and injustice.

In the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin the theme is that in order to be truly happy, one must stand up for what’s right, even if it means leaving everything that they know. Society creates traditions and ways of thinking that are not easy for everyone to follow. In Omelas, the citizens have the choice to ignore the suffering of a child locked in a cellar, or leave the life and the city they are familiar with. The people of Omelas must ask themselves whether it is better for a child to suffer for the city’s happiness and wealth, or should the city suffer, just to give the child a shot at happiness? It is ironic because Omelas is a

Ursula le guin's the ones who walk away from Omelas brought us an issue about happiness: could the happiness built on the suffering of the other be called as happiness? morally speaking, this utilitarianism mind-set of majority's interest over the sacrifice of individuals idea is wrong because human beings can not be evaluated like an object: the life of every individual is meaningful and it is the freedom of himself to decide his own destiny. however, in the daily practice, we find that people keep calculating the strength and weakness in order to achieve the best outcome. unfortunately, we have to reluctantly admit that life is a trade-off itself.

As we explore this peculiar world of Omelas, we are prompted to ask ourselves, "What do I think is the `perfect society'? What is happiness to me?", and most importantly (to me), "Would I walk away from Omelas?" While we explore these

In today’s world one of the most important things is education and they way citizens’ think. One example, of a control method in both society’s is to control citizens’ consciousness and education. In the society of “Those Who Walk Away From Omelas” citizens have happy consciousness, but are educated of the child who has to suffer. Which makes citizens’ of Omelas feel bad because of the suffering the child has to experience. As stated in “Those Who Walk Away From Omelas” “The know that if the wretched one were not there sniveling in the dark, the one one, the flute-player could make no joyful music…”(3) This quote shows that the suffering that child goes through is for the benefit of the others of Omelas. In contrast to the “Brave New World”

To be happy, one must take the happiness of others. That’s just how it works, right? In most cases, joy is brought by other’s despair. Author Ursula K. Le Guin took this into a more literal level, in her short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Le Guin tells a story about a town of fueling all of it’s happiness through one child who must suffer.

In “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula Le Guin, the informally-speaking narrator depicts a cookie-cutter utopia with perpetually happy citizens that sing and dance in the music-filled streets during the Festival of Summer. However, under one of the beautiful public buildings lays a child, no older than ten years-old, who lays in its own excrement. Although the citizens know the emancipated child is there, they refuse to act upon the child’s suffering, for their happiness depends entirely on the child’s abominable misery. Through ethos, the narrator illustrates this utopian society with a casual tone and frequently asks the audience for their input. Le Guin’s fairy-tale introduction of the story establishes her credibility through her extensive knowledge and understanding of the people of Omelas. Le Guin utilizes logos through the narrator’s second person point of view which incites the audience to draw their own conclusions about the city of Omelas and question their own justifications of the child’s existence. The concept of the happiness of many relying on the necessary suffering of one forces the reader to question their own morals and their justifications for the child’s physical and mental condition. Through ethos, logos, and pathos, Le Guin presents the contrast and divide between the citizens of Omelas and the child in the cellar in order to challenge the reader’s capacity for moral self-conception.

Self preservation and personal comfort, another consistent theme throughout the story is continuously perpetuated as generation-after-generation of residents are introduced to the unspeakable treatment of this helpless child. Ironically when first exposed to the atrocity, most children were more disgusted and outraged by the horrible predicament of the child than the adults who by all accounts should have been responsible for its protection. This obvious moral role reversal signifies a purity and innocence that is often present in a child’s perspective that is untarnished by corrupt societal teachings and norms. Additionally, the comparison between the moral integrity of

Happiness is a feeling that can be described in many ways. Some people describe it as a feeling of joy and pride, while others describe it as a feeling of contentment and gratitude. Either way, happiness is an emotional state that is based on a positive experience. In Ursula K. LeGuin`s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” and Shirley Jackson`s “The Lottery” the people experience happiness based on an experience that is neither positive, or humane. Their happiness and good fortune are at the expense of a “scapegoat.”

The people of Omelas are materialistically happy but are morally unhappy. The narrator implies that happiness is knowing the differences between what are needs, desires, and detriments to a person. Every person alive has basic needs which are deemed necessary, such as sustenance and shelter. All honest humans will admit that they have wants and desires that are not necessary, and many push the limits to attain them. And always there are those who are willing to allow the suffering of others to achieve their own desires. The adults of Omelas are not using just discrimination, and because of their immorality, are not happy.

As the people of Omelas continued to accept the truth of their city, some have begun to see the child as more of an it than a person and regarded the child similar to a wild animal. “One of them may come in and kick the child to make it stand up. The others never come close, but peer in at it with frightened, disgusted eyes” (245). Not only do the residents accept the child’s misery, they have also

The people of Omela believe it is better to exchange that one person’s happiness over the whole towns then to sacrifice their happiness for that one person. Every so often, a young boy, girl or adult visits the young child that does not go home to weep or rage, in fact, they do not go home at all. “They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness… It is possible it does not exist.

The citizens come to the consensus that nothing can be done for the child, and nothing should be done. To help this one miserable child would lead to the suffering of an entire city, after all. This is what the narrator persuades us to think. She uses many methods to prove her point. For instance, she tells us that if the child were to be saved, “in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed.” (1552). She defends the people of Omelas, who are not heartless, cruel, mindless “simple utopians,” but instead as passionate, intelligent, gentle people capable of sympathy. However, they understand that “the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars…the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child’s abominable misery.” (1552). Not only this, but she asserts that the child is too “imbecile” to recognize love anymore; it has grown too used to the darkness of the cellar to ever revert back to normal civilized life. At every turn, she finds a way to argue against compassion and in favor of causing pain; she portrays the assessment the Omelasians make of the child to be so logical and responsible that even the reader starts to buy into it. Why help the child? There is no point, is there? Continuing this abusive treatment of it is for the good of the order, isn’t it? The narrator makes it extremely easy to

“Omelas sounds in my words like a city in a fairy tale, long ago and far away, once upon a time”(Le Guin 254). In this town being happy comes at another’s suffering. In our society we tend to live for our own happiness even if that means harming others in the process. We strive for success in this world, we want money and we want to be the best. Our happiness is important to us but we are willing to take from others in order to get to our happiness.

“Joyous! How is one to tell about joy?” because as far as we know the people of Omelas do not even know what joy is about and are confusing it with compassion. “The Ones Who Run Away From Omelas” by Ursula K. LeGuin, is a story in which everybody would see it as a brutal and horrific story of a kid who is being incarcerated for his/her whole life as an exchange of all the goodness of the city. However, the narrator lets us know the misunderstanding concept of happiness that the Omelas’ people have, and how vague and profound this feeling can be for certain people who are living in a “Fairy tale city.” As the story goes along, the irony, parallelism, and persuasion that the narrator is giving to the story shows how elusive happiness