In Ursula K LeGuin’s short story The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas she presents the reader with his or her own version of a utopia. In this utopian society, effectively called Omelas, the people are happy. There is no guilt, no sadness, no pain felt by its citizens. All smile bigger, laugh louder and live merrier. However, halfway through describing the perfect utopia, she presents us with a cost. The cost is a single child’s eternal suffering. All the citizens of Omelas know if it’s existence, “but they all understand that 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 makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery,”[1] and are reluctant to surrender it. LeGuin then goes to mention that there are those who, upon seeing the utter suffering of the child, walk away from Omelas, from perfection.
When asked the question “Would you walk away?” most look to their moral compass, which tells them that the morally “right” choice would be to walk. However, reality and the current world situation leads me to believe that no, one would not walk away. My answer to the moral question is no, I would not walk away. Now, this is not to say that I, or anyone who would not walk, condone the suffering of children, nor do we believe that it is right. Yet, when looking at the choices we, as a North American society make, it leads me to believe that many who supposedly would walk, would do nothing of the sort.
To justify this, one must first look at how the story of Omelas is a microcosm of the world today. It all boils down to the fact that what we wear, what we eat, and even the toys we played with as children, come mostly from poorer and less fortunate countries, and it is through their suffering that we get to live in our own sort of pseudo-utopia. This can clearly be seen in the grand city of Omelas where, more directly, their happiness and prosperity comes from the suffering of a single child. It is also important to note that our society is fully aware of sweat shops, and the suffering of other nations, and in the same way in Omelas, we choose to ignore it. Looking at the fact that even with this knowledge that many of our material products are a product of suffering, we still use them. Most toys are made in China, most likely in a sweatshop, and we still buy countless numbers of them for children. It is almost common knowledge that companies such as Nike and Pier 1 Imports use resources such as these and yet, people still wear Nike’s and Pier 1 Imports is a very successful business. Due to the fact that we, as humans, like to think of ourselves as morally good, we push out thoughts of the pain and suffering that went into our “stuff” to feel better. Due to the fact that many of us, including myself, will not go through the effort to cause change and solve the problem, I can conclusively say that I, along with most of the western population, would walk away from all the happiness and prosperity of Omelas.
Another thing one must look at is the act of walking away, and its aftermath. Some of the people in Omelas see the child and are so outraged and feel an utter sense of guilt that they make the choice to leave Omelas. Some will argue that they don’t feel guilt as it is written in LeGuin’s story that, “one thing … there is none of in Omelas is guilt,”[1] but those who do feel guilt leave the city and are no longer a part of Omelas. When looking at motive for leaving Omelas, the only explanation I can see is guilt. One can look at leaving Omelas as the right choice; that walking is good, or morally right if you will. However, one must ask the question; what does walking away actually do? Does the child suffer any less because they walk away? Or do they walk away to remove themselves from the situation, and thusly the guilt attached to it? I believe that, no matter how good their intentions are, those who walk are only detaching themselves from guilt. They are distancing themselves from the society they view as immoral, and in doing so no longer have to feel guilty about how they live. In no way however, are they fixing the problem of the child’s suffering. It is important to also note that LeGuin points out that those who walk away, walk alone. None of them attempt to free the child, nor do they attempt to rally others in an effort to end it’s suffering. They merely leave Omelas and leave the guilt they feel behind.
In closing, one can look to see that neither leaving or staying in Omelas is the morally “right choice.” Staying means that you live off the avails of the suffering and pain of a small child. Conversely, leaving Omelas by oneself only removes one from having to suffer the guilt that coincides with living in Omelas. In analyzing the information, I can comfortably say that I would not leave Omelas, but neither would anyone else. We are too comfortable with the way things are to go out of our way to change them. We push back our feelings of guilt about the situation in order to feel better about ourselves. Also, those who do walk away are no more morally right than the rest of us. Even if one does leave Omelas, the child is still there, still suffering, and all for the good of the beautiful utopia of Omelas.
When asked the question “Would you walk away?” most look to their moral compass, which tells them that the morally “right” choice would be to walk. However, reality and the current world situation leads me to believe that no, one would not walk away. My answer to the moral question is no, I would not walk away. Now, this is not to say that I, or anyone who would not walk, condone the suffering of children, nor do we believe that it is right. Yet, when looking at the choices we, as a North American society make, it leads me to believe that many who supposedly would walk, would do nothing of the sort.
To justify this, one must first look at how the story of Omelas is a microcosm of the world today. It all boils down to the fact that what we wear, what we eat, and even the toys we played with as children, come mostly from poorer and less fortunate countries, and it is through their suffering that we get to live in our own sort of pseudo-utopia. This can clearly be seen in the grand city of Omelas where, more directly, their happiness and prosperity comes from the suffering of a single child. It is also important to note that our society is fully aware of sweat shops, and the suffering of other nations, and in the same way in Omelas, we choose to ignore it. Looking at the fact that even with this knowledge that many of our material products are a product of suffering, we still use them. Most toys are made in China, most likely in a sweatshop, and we still buy countless numbers of them for children. It is almost common knowledge that companies such as Nike and Pier 1 Imports use resources such as these and yet, people still wear Nike’s and Pier 1 Imports is a very successful business. Due to the fact that we, as humans, like to think of ourselves as morally good, we push out thoughts of the pain and suffering that went into our “stuff” to feel better. Due to the fact that many of us, including myself, will not go through the effort to cause change and solve the problem, I can conclusively say that I, along with most of the western population, would walk away from all the happiness and prosperity of Omelas.
Another thing one must look at is the act of walking away, and its aftermath. Some of the people in Omelas see the child and are so outraged and feel an utter sense of guilt that they make the choice to leave Omelas. Some will argue that they don’t feel guilt as it is written in LeGuin’s story that, “one thing … there is none of in Omelas is guilt,”[1] but those who do feel guilt leave the city and are no longer a part of Omelas. When looking at motive for leaving Omelas, the only explanation I can see is guilt. One can look at leaving Omelas as the right choice; that walking is good, or morally right if you will. However, one must ask the question; what does walking away actually do? Does the child suffer any less because they walk away? Or do they walk away to remove themselves from the situation, and thusly the guilt attached to it? I believe that, no matter how good their intentions are, those who walk are only detaching themselves from guilt. They are distancing themselves from the society they view as immoral, and in doing so no longer have to feel guilty about how they live. In no way however, are they fixing the problem of the child’s suffering. It is important to also note that LeGuin points out that those who walk away, walk alone. None of them attempt to free the child, nor do they attempt to rally others in an effort to end it’s suffering. They merely leave Omelas and leave the guilt they feel behind.
In closing, one can look to see that neither leaving or staying in Omelas is the morally “right choice.” Staying means that you live off the avails of the suffering and pain of a small child. Conversely, leaving Omelas by oneself only removes one from having to suffer the guilt that coincides with living in Omelas. In analyzing the information, I can comfortably say that I would not leave Omelas, but neither would anyone else. We are too comfortable with the way things are to go out of our way to change them. We push back our feelings of guilt about the situation in order to feel better about ourselves. Also, those who do walk away are no more morally right than the rest of us. Even if one does leave Omelas, the child is still there, still suffering, and all for the good of the beautiful utopia of Omelas.
[1] Ursula K. Le Guin, “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. New Dimensions Volume . Ed.
Robert Silverberg. USA: Signet,1973.Print.
Hi Stephan,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this fantastic response! One of the major strengths of this analysis is your ability to stay close to Le Guin's text. Not only does your answer keep the author's 'conditions' in mind, but it also uses specific textual citations as support.
You are correct to point out the problems with many of our gut reactions to leave Omelas. We are so hypocritical: as you emphasize, Le Guin's fictionalized world is (in many ways) a microcosm of our own society. Using the utopia as her setting, the short story makes powerful social commentary in ways that a more 'realistic' text could not. You identify accurately small examples of 'utopia' in our own society. Even if we do not live in a fully perfect world, our luxuries still come at a high cost. As you demonstrate, we are too often willingly blind to these costs.
I urge you to continue thinking about this issue. You should consider the problems involved in using our own culture as justification for your answer. In many ways, this ethics-based question is aimed at what we OUGHT to do and why. Much of your answer is based on what IS the case - rather than what SHOULD be the case.
That being said, you provide a thoughtful critique of those who decide to walk away. Based on what Le Guin gives her reading audience as the 'conditions' of this utopia, this course of action does not help in any way other than to possibly relieve the guilt of the person walking away.
Great work!
- Patrick