Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Utilitarianism

The narrator describes the city of Omelas to have no king (president), political system, technology, weapons, or many of the things that currently permeate our

In "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" author Ursula K. Le Guin uses the utopian society of Omelas to symbolically highlight the ugly and unsavory state of the human condition. The stories unidentified narrator paints a colorful picture of Omelas and ironically describes its residents as happy, joyous and not at all barbaric. Although Le Guin describes Omelas as a delightful even whimsical place that affords its citizens “…happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of the of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weather of their skies”; we come to discover just the opposite (5). At its core we find a

The town of Omelas is a deceptive dystopia that at the beginning, sounds like a world dreamed up by a child, full of joy and peace. Le Guin illustrates this environment of tranquility: “In the silence of the broad green meadows one could hear the music winding through the city

The one that stayed locked up - crazy from his misery. Those that remained outside - went mad with fear for their happiness or walked away from the city. No one tried to save the boy. Most people only learned to pretend blind to the suffering of others. LeGuin does not answer her questions. The author only hints that "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" are the ones who are moving away from the trouble. People are walking away from a city where there is no truth, justice, true freedom, and true happiness. And then readers understand that almost all of us actually live and agree to live (not always happily) at the expense of the suffering of others. That is how our world functions. We have not created it so, and it is not for us to change. On the other hand, very few are brave to fight the justice of the world, those who walk

"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is an attempt to explain the problem of evil. Collins writes "the narrative justifies or makes sense of a painful aspect of theodicy"(527). The question of the problem of evil is summed up in three statements: God is good, God is omnipotent and omniscient, and there is evil. The existence of evil is usually accepted as a given. If God is good, but not omnipotent, he wants to stop evil, but cannot. If God is omnipotent, but not good, he could stop evil, but would not. In Christianity, however, God is understood to be both good and omnipotent,

In both works, “The Ones That Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K Leguin and “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson, the authors show sacrifice. This essay will compare the differences and similarities in the stories, and how these sacrifices add to the fulfillment of their lives, success, and happiness.

The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas is a short story written by Ursula Le Guin. In her story, Le Guin creates a model Utilitarian society in which the majority of its citizens are devoid of suffering; allowing them to become an expressive, artistic population. Le Guin’s unrelenting pursuit of making the reader imagine a rich, happy and festival abundant society mushrooms and ultimately climaxes with the introduction of the outlet for all of Omelas’ avoided misfortune. Le Guin then introduces a coming of age ritual in which innocent adolescents of the city are made aware of the byproduct of their happiness. She advances with a scenario where most of these adolescents are extremely burdened at

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

There is no way the city of Omelas could imprison all children or citizens in the city of Omelas, so if it cannot be made into a universal law then there is no justification of the action being done. Additionally, the second maxim relates to treating no one as a means to an end. Treating no one as a means to an end means behaving a certain way towards an individual just to get something out of them. With the child’s suffrage in the compact cellar room, they are respecting it as a means to the overall happiness in the city of Omelas. By behaving towards the child this specific way, they are treating him or her in a certain way just to get satisfaction and happiness and the end result shows it is a terrible action. Another problem deontologists view is that the people of Omelas know about the suffrage of the child, so there is nothing hidden from the citizens. Several of the townspeople even go see the child, but yet no one has done anything about it. All of the people that do nothing or the people that leave the city of Omelas are no help to the suffrage of the child due their action of entirely leaving or ignoring the situation has no good will. With all of these mistreatments given to the child living in horrible conditions, there is no way that anyone in the city of Omelas should be enjoying happiness.

Ursula Le Guin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” is a plotless, philosophical fiction. Written in 1973, Le Guin tells the dark narrative of a fictional town which lives in peace with itself. The seemingly happy town houses a dark secret, one so dark that citizen’s of the town leave to escape it. Ursula Le Guin does this by using authorial intrusion, withholding information, and encouraging her readers to think.

It may be true that at first, it seems logical that only one individual needs to suffer, while the rest of the city is allowed to celebrate, but keep in mind that the individual suffering for the city’s sake is merely an innocent child. In the story, the child is described as having “been afraid too long ever to be free of fear. Its habits are too uncouth for it to respond to humane treatment” (246). Still, even if the one suffering is not a child, who is to say that one’s life deserves to suffer more than the other? All of the people that live in Omelas do know that only this one child is carrying the weight of their whole city, and a majority of them choose to turn a blind eye, deciding not to help the miserable child in exchange for living a desirable life. The foundation of this city is painfully based on broken, even selfish, morals. Moreover, instead of just simply leaving the child, some people in the city have gone as far as handling the child with harsh, unreasonable treatment.

In a Utilitarian world the lives and needs of the many in the society are put over the needs of the few. This idea is seen in a lot of popular dystopian movies like the hunger games, divergent, and harry potter. This is a common theme in literature and movies because it is a safe way to picture the crazy “what ifs” in life. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas ” by Ursula Le Guin, all of humanity will be happy and safe if one child is kept neglected and abused for all life. Obviously, in an ideal world the rights of every single person would be important but when not only your happiness is on the line but your children, family, friends, and the rest of the society’s happiness and livelihood is on the line I believe that most people would trade the happiness of one for the happiness of all society. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" the true purpose of the article is to debate the ethical ideology between a utilitarian vs. egalitarian society. It is uncomfortable to discuss because there is no obvious answer, no matter what there will be negative consequences. Also, it's a real life question, it’s not something purely fictional, its something a debate that occurs every day and effects the lives of many. Societies are built on the foundation that every person is equal, and in theory this is a wonderful idea.When we live in a world of over 7 billion people, the question has to be asked “if the good of the society is more important than the suffering of one person”. Take

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.

In Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” the narrator describes a beautiful utopian society. Nonetheless, the reader quickly learns that there is something much darker about the society and the reasons for its beauty. Throughout the description of the utopia, the reader is given hints of flaws within the society (drugs, drinking, etc.). All of the minor flaws that are foreshadowed to the reader in the beginning lead into the major flaw that is later found out -- the scapegoat. The scapegoat, or the person who all the minor flaws are blamed on, is the child who is locked underneath the city. However, the point of view the story is told from is what particularly leads the reader to the theme. If told from a different point

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.