The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Analysis

From the beginning of time, society has made the “moral” perspective the desired response or reaction to all situations and scenarios. The term moral means concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior, and the integrity or dishonesty of human character. To be morally sound, one must address the true meaning and purpose of morality. In the story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” citizens often leave due to the reality of their society. The ones who walk away from Omelas are cowards, not “moral” heroes of any manner. By leaving Omelas the former residents are abandoning the child to suffer in Omelas, its bitter reality, which involves no one changing the course of its life.

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.

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”

In the second half of The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, a child was introduced. No one knew if it was a he or she, it had no name, no clothing, no one was even allowed to speak to it. This child was stuck in a room to be tortured, in the city of happiness, Omelas. This child’s suffering was the only thing keeping this town’s joy alive. More specifically, Le Guin wrote, “...their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their markers, even the abundance of

It is safe to say that most people in the world want one thing, happiness. Many men, women, and children will go through great lengths to find this cherished feeling, but how far is too far? In the fictional short stories "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson and "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin both have a different belief on what way to obtain happiness for their communities, but are in the similar lines of the need to harm one individual for the contentment of the others. In "The Lottery" the community joins together for their annual gamble of life where, families each go pull a ticket out of the black box to then discover who will be the one stoned to death for the good of everyone's crops. In "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" although they cherish life dearly they hide a unperfect child locked away in the dark, underneath the beautiful Omelas buildings in a basement. Its sole purpose is to be hungry, dirty, and miserable for if this child were to ever feel happiness, the people of Omelas would not. Although the two stories use different methods to acquire their happiness they both believe with the harming of others they obtain their happiness.

Another problem is one that deals with the justification of happiness. What is happiness for one person is not necessarily happiness for the other. If there were a basket of oranges given to a starving group of people, one person might be happy to have the orange because it is his favorite fruit and won’t be starving now, but one person might be deathly allergic to oranges and so he will be left starving. The intentions of one person might be to pull the victim form a burning building

In “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” the citizens live in a utopian society, or at least they want Omelas to be a utopian society. If you go in depth of the story, you will realize that Omelas is not so perfect at all, and their surroundings are gilded. Omelas is dystopian that shows the suffering of one for the happiness of others. It is summer time in Omelas, and the city is having a festival. The festival is full of happy people, and everything is perfect. The happiness of the city of Omelas is just a coating for the suffering of a ten-year-old child. The child is locked away in a basement without sunlight, a little bit of food and no happiness at all, and this is all for the town happiness. Many people in this gilded society feel guilty

In Omelas happiness is inevitable is a sense all due to the sacrifice of one individual that in no way is voluntary. One child is chosen from the general population to serve as a sort of sacrifice which allows everyone else in the city to be at peace. The area in which the child is placed in is a small room with no windows and given the bare minimum of amenities with little to no contact with the rest of the world other than the short visits from the people. It is torture to say the least. If the child were to be somehow saved from the cell that it is in, the entire city of Omelas would suffer. The city’s immense

A good life is what everybody wants. A life where everything is perfect. But everybody has different ideas of a good life regarding it's good or bad experiences. Every experience we encounter we tend to grow and mature from our former selves. The One who realized life is not a fairytale is able to make sense of reality. As to some people think more about themselves as to others, But long as you satisfied with your decisions in life you're going to be happy. In the story "The one who walked away from omelas" by Ursula k. le Guin, the narrate put out a story about omelas where it saw like the utopian society but is not perfect it seen from outside. The inside wall of the omelas happiness is based off a small child sacrificing. The problem

Everyone in Omelas knows of the child; the children are usually told between the ages of eight and twelve when they are capable of understanding. However there is a difference between knowing and seeing: “No matter how well the matter has been explained to them, these young spectators are always shocked and sickened at the sight” (Le Guin 971). When they see the child for the first time, they realized how profound the darkness and misery that this child exists in is. It is this realization that introduces the people to the negative side of Omelas but there are those that do not do anything to help. They anguish the fact that this child is malnourished, scared and neglected yet they do not attempt to save the child. These are the citizens who overcome their guilt and continue living as if nothing ever happened. Le Guin states that the people of Omelas understand that the basis of their happiness depends on the child’s misery and without it, their city would not be successful. In order words: the child’s suffering is necessary for the city’s joy. Although, there is another side to the population of Omelas- which are the ones who walk away. They are the few that “… [do] not, in fact, go home at all… They keep walking, and walk straight out of the city of Omelas…” (Le Guin 972) because they do not understand why this child must face this cruel suffering. When these people view the

Underneath this happiness, there is a child who has been locked inside a cage and the child’s suffering is meant to show among the people of utopian society that how important the happiness can be as well as how painful justice can be. The child was locked there and was forced to live the miserable life in order to show the preciousness of happiness in life. Every people were living happily. Some people left the society after watching the life of innocent child and some people keep enjoying their life in the beautiful society Omelas. The narrator in this book wants to convey the massage of Life is all about happiness and suffering. This is true that the real meaning of happiness hides under the struggle. But it is not fair to put an innocent child’s life in trouble to show the happiness of life for others. So, I don’t think it is necessary to have suffering in a Utopian society. The perfect world can be made without one’s suffering. Struggle and suffering is totally different. Why putting some innocent’s life in trouble for others happiness? The only bad aspects of that society were the suffering of innocent child which was not necessary. The perfect world in my opinion will be without some one’s suffering where every life gets the

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

At first glance, Utilitarian moral theories may seem to support the idea of torturing this innocent man. If we look at this situation we see that there is a dilemma of hurting one man, or having to bear the death of many. We may say that since the basis of Utilitarianism is

Therefore, happiness seems to be at the expense of justice. “The folks were not simple folk, though they were happy” (1312). They would not use the word “cheer” anymore because they weren’t cheerful (1312), but yet all smiles would become archaic (1312). They didn’t have slaves or swords nor did they use their people as barbarians (1312). Yet their society, rules, and laws were especially less complex, but the people of Omelas “were not less complex than us” (1312). “The trouble was encouraged by sophisticates considering happiness rather than being stupid” (1312). Their children were happy, mature and intelligent; perhaps happiness is based on what is neither necessary nor destructive. Omelas strikes some as all smiles and good people. The people of the Omelas have guilt, and the joy they have is built on successful slaughter. What swells the hearts of Omelas is the boundless, generous and magnanimous triumph in souls of all men and against some other enemy.

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