Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Utilitarianism

For every good decision in life, for every benefit society reaps, a negative effect will always accompany it. The world ignores the harshness of these negative realities when the decision benefits the majority, relating closely to the ethical theory of utilitarianism, which determines an action is morally good if it helps the greatest amount of people. This utilitarian mentality is displayed in Ursula K Le Guin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, where the joyful bliss of a city is reliant upon the painful suffering of a small child who is kept in a basement. The people in the city ignore the misery and abuse of the young child for the positive benefits they receive in return. Similarly in society today, the suffering of a smaller

He describes how despite the leagues problem with domestic violence, former players having brain damage and committing suicide, their tendency to over fine players to make more money, and employment of bad people like Greg Hardy, people who like football don’t care enough to do something about it (Foster 1). Football fans continue to contribute to the success of the NFL by watching the games, playing fantasy football, and buying tickets and jerseys in record numbers. Foster implies people watch football “because it entertains us, because it brings us together, because of tradition and other fine reasons.” (Scott 1). Therefore, like the people in the omelas with the small child, NFL fans ignore the suffering of the increasing amount of domestic abuse victims and the suicides, for their own happiness. Scott concludes, “We don't change for the same reason the NFL won't change: Change is not in our best interest.” (Scott 1). No one stands up for all the people negatively affected by the NFL’s power by boycotting or not watching, because if they do they will sacrifice the happiness they get from the football

Like the child in the story, regarding the NFL there is recognition that terrible occurrences are taking place, but barely anyone does anything about it. As Foster concludes, it “should make us uncomfortable”(1) that no one protests the NFL or speaks out because it’s not in their best interest, he is also, like Guin, drawing attention to moral questions in the utilitarian mentality. As Foster suggests, the reader should be uncomfortable with the thriving success of the corrupt NFL, which is relatable to the suffering of the child. Moreover, by presenting these morality issues, both Guin and Foster are giving the audience ethical questions to consider. The problem isn’t that the people of Omelas or the NFL supporters don’t know that the abused child or the corrupt league is wrong, it’s that wrong actions and suffering of a few are acknowledged and rationalized for the happiness and pleasure of a greater amount of people. This should be bothersome, though society seems to have developed the ability to except the exchange of suffering for happiness. Thus, Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” works to highlight real world ethical issues in choosing happiness of the majority, like in the ongoing NFL scandals, and silently asks the reader if this is morally