Ursula K. Leguin's 'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas'

Is Omelas Moral?
“Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary…” (437). This intriguing phrase comes from Ursula K. Leguin’s short story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. In this six page story, Leguin uses a small utopian city, Omelas, to explore morality through two themes, “Is happiness worth suffering” and “Ignorance or withdrawal”.
Happiness, a character trait that could easily describe all of the inhabitants of Omelas, except for one. This one inhabitant, a young child, is kept locked in a cellar and suffers immensely from lack of light, clothing, food, and loneliness. Yet, this child’s suffering is the key to the happiness of Omelas. So, this story presents the idea that the happiness of the majority is worth

the suffering of the minority. “To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed” (440). This theme, that happiness can be achieved through the suffering of others is morally corrupt. Suffering in itself is not immoral, neither is happiness. However, in this case, those who are happy are inflicting the suffering on this child in order that their happiness lasts. This is an extreme act of selfishness that in no way can be considered moral.
Leguin’s story also asks the morally intriguing question of whether withdrawal from a problem or ignorance of a problem is better.

In her story, all of the inhabitants of of the city must visit this young child. Each visitor sees the child in all if its misery in order that they understand where the happiness of Omelas comes from. The visitors struggle with this idea, but most, simply agree that “ … there is nothing they can do” (440) for this child. Then accepting the fact, they become ignorant of the child suffering. Yet, there are the few that disagree with the the child’s condition and decide to walk away. “They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back” (441). While they do not accept the treatment of the child, they simply withdraw and walk away, instead of voicing their concern or disgust. These two types of inhabitants show two different responses to the child. Leguin leaves the reader with no conclusive answer to the moral question if withdrawal or ignorance is more moral. However, the fact is, that neither of these themes are moral. Ignorance is turning the blind eye to evil and withdrawal is not standing up for one’s personal morals. Withdrawal seems to be obviously more moral, because unlike being ignorant, withdrawal does not further the suffering of the child. Yet withdrawal does not improve or help the child either; therefore, it is no better than ignorance. Both of these themes are immoral and should not be

emulated.
While being an interesting story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” presents two immoral themes. Leguin’s story presents and accepts the idea that the happiness of the majority is worth the suffering of the minority. Which, once analysed, is an immoral idea since it originates from selfishness of the majority. This story also presents two ways to react to a problem, ignorance and withdrawal. Neither of these reactions are moral, because they have no affect or worsen the problem. Therefore, due to these immoral themes, this tale of utopian perfection should not be a basis for the reader’s own personal morals.