The visionary late science fiction novelist Ursula K. LeGuin wrote a short story titled “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas.” In the story, a single helpless child is subjected to extreme misery in exchange for the residents of the little city of Omelas receiving many advantages from a divine source. The narrative finishes with the insight that a small percentage of the populace cannot stand to continue to support the injustice. As a result, they become the proverbial “ones who walk away from Omelas.” Generally, these people have no idea where they are heading, but they are entirely aware of their motives for leaving.
Utilitarianism would judge this utopia as perfect since it ensures that the greater majority’s needs are met. Utilitarians argue that morality should aim to improve life by boosting happiness and reducing unhappiness. Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism are the two subtypes of utilitarianism. Torture is allowed while promoting pleasure and decreasing unhappiness in act utilitarianism. In contrast, respect for an individual’s rights may be the exception rather than the norm in rule utilitarianism.
The author was inspired by the dilemma of how people would or should respond if the pleasure of their society rested on the misery of even a single lost soul. Le Guin notes in the story that “happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive” (2). Therefore, act utilitarianism would approve of this utopia since the action is desirable as a means to an end. Nonetheless, rule-utilitarians might argue that people should not sacrifice a child to an evil deity because it is generally a good rule to “do not torture.”
Immanuel Kant would judge this utopia as imperfect since the action of torture to obtain happiness is irrational. In Kantian deontology, a person’s decisions must be reasonable and compliant with the categorical imperative. Kant establishes a connection between goodness and conditional happiness. Immanuel Kant contends that human deeds are only right if they are motivated by goodwill. In other words, if people do not have compassion, everything they do will be wrong and detrimental to others.
The child’s state in the Omelas is miserable, as the story depicts. Le Guin note, “the child used to scream for help at night and cry a good deal, but now it only makes a kind of whining, and it speaks less and less often” (5). As a result, Kant would not approve of the action in Omelas because, based on his arguments, individuals should treat people with dignity and never use anyone only as a means, not an end. Kantian deontologists would reach this conclusion since it is improper to torture someone since it is wrong and unreasonable to disrespect their humanity at all times.
I would be surprised if this kind of utopia even existed. Essentially, I would walk away and never return if I could not help the child from misery. I agree with Kant’s claim that moral fulfillment is facilitated by goodwill. I would prefer not to see the child in that state to avoid the pain of regret and rage. I believe that guilt would ruin the idea of happiness in this case. Generally, a guilty person cannot be happy, and an individual who is not contented does not belong in Omelas.
Work Cited
Le Guin, Ursula. The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. College of Business Administration.