Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Utilitarianism

Ursula K. Le Guin uses her story “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” to exhibit her disapproval of the utilitarianism seen in modern society by contrasting the contentment of the citizens of the fictitious utopian city, Omelas, with an account of the abused child in a closet in the cellar of one of the city’s buildings. The reader is shown how, in spite of Omelas’ utopian qualities, there are some of its citizens that exit the city, never to return. Those that walk away serve to express Le Guin’s own negative view on utilitarianism, and serves to compel the reader to contemplate whether or not they could tolerate a situation such as the one detailed.
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that deems that which both minimizes suffering and maximizes well-being as being morally right. It is hard to digest the image of a child “so thin [that] there are no calves to its legs,” whose “buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually” (3). However, Le Guin clearly outlines within the story that the child’s appalling condition is unconditionally required for the all of the other citizens of Omelas to thrive: “The terms are strict and absolute; there may not even be a kind word spoken to the child” (3). Having one, single child as a scapegoat preserves the quality of life for everyone

else, so the practice of neglecting the child is in line with a utilitarian perspective.
In many respects, Omelas is akin to the real world. Instead of a single child suffering in the basement, there are countless underpaid laborers in sweatshops and other deplorable workplaces worldwide making products for consumers in wealthier countries. Instead of beautiful nudes “offering themselves like divine souffles” (2), the real world boasts material treasures such as cheap oils, gadgets, and children’s toys. In likeness to some of those in Omelas, whose “tears at the bitter injustice dry when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept it” (4), many individuals in the modern day brood over the suffering of those exploited for modern convenience before becoming complacent with the fact that said exploitation makes everything they know and love about modern life a possibility.
Those that remain in Omelas are not the main focus of Le Guin’s story, but also play a role in expressing her view on the way the utilitarian philosophy serves society: “They know that they, like the child, are not free.” (4).

The acceptance of their helplessness in the child’s predicament is symbolic of the modern individual’s helplessness in the treatment of those that make modern conveniences possible. Le Guin also gives the reader insight into the frustration faced by the citizens of Omelas: “They feel anger, outrage, impotence, despite all the explanations. They would like to do something for the child. But there is nothing they can do.”

(4).
Most important in expressing Le Guin’s own view on modern utilitarianism is the account she provides of those who walk away from the utopian city:
At times one of the adolescent girls or boys who go to see the child does not go home to weep or rage, does not, in fact, go home at all. Sometimes also a man or woman much older falls silent for a day or two, and then leaves home. These people go out into the street, and walk down the street alone. They keep walking, and walk straight out of the city of Omelas, through the beautiful gates. (4)
Although the ones that walk away realize that the greater good is being served through only one individual’s hardship, they cannot bear to be associated with such an unfair standard of morality. What they are headed towards outside of the beautiful gates of Omelas is not clearly described to the reader. Rather, Le Guin only shares that it is “less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness” (4).
Le Guin’s presentation of the ethical conundrum of Omelas’ utilitarian utopia begs the reader to contemplate whether or not they could abide such an arrangement. Le Guin questions whether or not utilitarianism is truly morally sound, and offers her own take on the philosophy of utilitarianism by showing the reader the ones who walk away. The reader sees Le Guin’s disapproval of the utilitarianism seen in modern society through the image of those that would prefer the unimaginable world beyond Omelas’ beautiful gates.