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

group of people is ignored for the greater happiness overall. Jason Foster’s article “The NFL will never care about people until we care enough not to watch” exclaims how football watchers ignore the NFL’s domestic abuse and brain damage problems to receive the overall benefit of the product. Furthermore, the article “Shoppers Ignore Concerns Over Worker Conditions Despite Bangladesh Factory Tragedy” by Scott Mayerowitz accounts how people continue to buy clothing from companies with questionable working conditions. Therefore, through contrasting the happiness of the Omelas to the alarming suffering of the imprisoned child, Guin highlights the moral issues in the utilitarian mindset society continuously employs.
In “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” Guin establishes the happiness of the city right at the beginning. The narrator describes the Festival of Summer, where music plays, children run around and the air is “cheerful” (1). The people who lived in Omelas . “were mature, intelligent, passionate adults whose lives were not wretched”(2) and their lives are completely “joyous” (3). The horses are ready to race, everything seems perfect in Omelas as they start the Festival of Summer when suddenly the narrator says “let me describe one more thing”(4). Locked away in a basement below a building or home in Omelas lays a small child, around the age of 10 but looks much younger. The child, mentally destroyed beyond measure, looks born defective, or has learned to look that way “through fear, malnutrition, and neglect” (4). Only sometimes do people come to see it, and the child barely speaks now, haven given up on cries for help. All of the people of Omelas understand that their happiness and joy of their society “depend wholly on this child's abominable misery.” As children this seems cruel, but most of them learn to leave with the terms of the happiness of the city over the happiness of one, and only some of them ever walk away. Thus, this is very similar to real world issues today where we choose the majority benefit over the suffering of a smaller number of individuals. By creating such a drastic contrast between happiness of the citizens and the suffering of the child, Guin challenges this ethical mindset of making a decision based off of what benefits the majority. As the citizens of Omelas do, the real world, in cases like the NFL ethical issues and working conditions, excuses and justifies hurting a smaller amount of people for the greater good.
Jason Foster’s “The NFL will never care about people until we care enough not to watch” perfectly connects to Guin’s comment on the moral issues in the utilitarianism.

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

product.
The NFL’s continued reign of power as one of the highest grossing products currently is one of many real world examples that connects to Guin’s story on Omelas.

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

right.
Scott Mayerowitz’s “Shoppers Ignore Concerns Over Worker Conditions Despite Bangladesh Factory Tragedy” presents another real world issues that relates to the utilitarianism mindset presented in Guin’s story. Mayerowitz describes how after the Bangladesh garmet factory tragedy where over 100 people died in a fire caused by terrible working conditions, most shoppers didn’t even stop to wonder where their clothes made from, and who suffered from making it. Companies value profit and efficiency over safety and health, and customers value cheap prices over wondering about those suffering from their purchases. (Maverowitz 1). Maverowtiz writes that “Experts who survey shoppers say the out of sight, out of mind attitude is nothing new,” which relates to the people of Omelas who ignore the child completely, “content merely to know it is there. (Guin 5). Like in Omelas, as well as the NFL situation, the suffering of the victims is not a hidden fact. People are aware of the small child locked in a basement, the domestic violence problem in the NFL, and the harsh conditions endured by those who make their clothing. However, they ignore the suffering of the minority to receive the benefits. Hence, pertaining to these to Mayerowitz’s and Scott’s story, the suffering child symbolizes the NFL corruption victims and the struggling workers that society ignores to receive a football product and cheaper clothing. The “joyous” (Guin 3) nature of Omelas is similar to the joy football fans feel when they watch a game, or the happiness a customer feels when they buy cheap clothing. In return though, the “abominable misery” of the child (Guin 4) must be accepted, and this is the moral issue that Guin intends to highlight in the city of Omelas.
The decision that benefits the common good is not always the morally right, as utilitarianism suggests, when it brings about a cruel suffering of small amount of individuals. Though despite this, society today often ignores the pain of other in trade for their own happiness. Ursula K Le Guin’s short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” attempts to highlight the issues in the utilitarian mindset that allow society to turn a blind eye to the cruel suffering of certain individuals and benefit from it. This is demonstrated in both Foster’s article “The NFL will never care about people until we care enough not to watch” and Mayerowitz’s “Shoppers Ignore Concerns Over Worker Conditions Despite Bangladesh Factory Tragedy,” which display how society ignores the ethical issues in large corporations like the NFL, and harsh working conditions of clothing companies because they benefit from their product. Overall, these article serve as real life examples of Omelas and the suffering child in Guin’s short story, which aims to challenge utilitarian society.