The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Analysis

Bob had to make a choice between saving a child he didn’t know and saving his Bugatti. Bob chooses to save his car and the child ends up dying. This is wrong because the child was a human being and in the grand scheme of things the car was meaningless, despite Bob’s valuing it over a child’s life. Singer states, “to be able to consign a child to death when he is standing right in front of you takes a chilling kind of heartlessness; it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help children you will never meet” (Singer). I don’t agree with Singers statement because I think both ways are heartlessness. Even if you don’t know the child, I don’t think it is right to let the child die over something that is worthless. Unger agrees with what Bob did was wrong. Singer states, “he reminds us that we, too, have opportunities to save the lives of children” (Singer).

If I had the option to stay or leave Omelas, I would choose to stay and make plans for the future of the city to keep everyone happy instead of on the path to nowhere. Although it is unquestionably hard to even think about the way LeGuin describes the awful truth of a 10-year-old child suffering from the lack of food and love being kept in a dark, dirty basement room. The only food he gets is a half-bowl of corn meal per day and lying around on its own excrement for the rest of the day. It’s impossible for me to imagine this little child wretched in this awful situation, but what could I do as a citizen to help this child to get out from that ruined place?

From a close look at the current situation in the world - globalization is drawing more and more countries, and on the other hand, more and more are getting further from each other in terms of life level. In the story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" Ursula LeGuin reminds her readers that walking away from a problem is not a solution of it. Omelas’ well-being in some supernatural way is associated with the life of one child, who is caring a lonely existence in a dark basement. However, citizens of this city did not dare to change lives or try to come to the child with a gentle word. Otherwise, the happiness for the whole city would be over. At the same time, all the people of the city knew this child. The author raises many humanitarian questions that will influence the civilization’s future survival: will people do something about a problem or keep walking away and enjoy their happiness for someone’s suffering?

The ones who walk away from Omelas believe in equality and fairness among their city. They believe that it is not fair for the citizens to act like they are living a perfect life when they know there is someone that has been suffering, trapped in a room with no human contact for what seems like a countless number of years. When they decide to walk away from Omelas, it is not because they are acting cowardly or trying to avoid helping the young child. These people make this decision to help themselves. Those outcasts who walk away not knowing where they are going are humans that cannot accept the fact that they have been so happy while another person in their same city is miserable.

Contemporary American culture is represented in “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin. Omelas is a Utopian city which inhabits citizens who are pleased and content with their lives. It is described as happy, full of freedom and joy. However, this privilege of life comes at a price. In order for the people of Omelas to live this way, a child must be kept stowed away in a dark closet. Miserable and left to wallow in it's own filth, the citizens are told or even bear witness to the child's agony. After being exposed to the child, most of the citizens carry on with their lives, employing the cause of the child's unfortunate place in their society. Nobody knows where they go, but some do silently walk

Therefore, they are left in the street with no parents to take care of them. A solution is necessary to stop the suffering of these children. Of course, stopping wars that displace these children would

Jeanna Bryner, the managing editor of Live Science relinquished an article called “Human Suffering: Why We Care (or Don’t)” in order to explicate the different factors that affect our decisions in availing or not. One of the fascinating reasons mentioned was “To make any difference in Darfur… a person would have to make a much longer-term commitment that could be quite taxing, physically and monetarily.”(par. 17). Bryner expounded that in order to avail others, we need to give up an abundance of time in our lives, and not everyone can do that. Availing others can additionally be hazardous, for example, if we wanted to avail people in Darfur who are under a perpetual genocide, we might have to peregrinate there and there’s an immensely colossal chance of losing our lives. A plethora of times it is physically arduous to avail others. To us the benefit of staying home with our families and having a stable life largely affects our decision of availing others. All those societal factors make us act nonchalant to human suffering, but they are not the only reasons to why we act the way we do.

In "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", the writer has left it up to the reader interpretation of the townspeople's actions.There are those who, upon learning the tragic reality of what goes on in Omelas simply cannot handle what they know to be true and refuse to accept it so they leave never to return again. But the most disturbing group of people are those who see what is happening and do absolutely nothing. We will talk about this town, but most importantly, what is it that could be happening in this small town of Omelas that would make people leave and never return?

Through the course of this paper the author will try to demonstrate, depicting both sides of the argument, the reasons in which a follower of John Stuart Mill 's "Utilitarianism" would disagree with the events taking place in Ursula Le Guin 's "The One 's Who Walk Away from Omelas."

Could one give a justification for making an innocent individual suffer just to preserve the happiness of the greater good? In the story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula Le Guin, the life of a young child is ignored and imprisoned in order to make others happy. This specific situation in Omelas can be approached in one or two ways, including either the deontological view or the utilitarianism view. However, the proper ethical dilemma relating to the city of Omelas would be the deontological view due to their beliefs not damaging anyone else's lives to preserve happiness to the population.

Comparison and Contrast of “The Lottery” and “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”. The differences between "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson and "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin seem relatively minor when comparing them, it is important to note that the two short stories are based upon suffering, its morality and consequences. Both pieces revolve around the agony experienced by one person in order to enhance the lives of many; turning a blind eye to the horrors of humanity for the greater good of all affected people.

In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, symbolism is used throughout the entire story. The author, Ursula K. Le Guin, creates some complex symbols in the city of Omelas itself, the ones who walk away, the child in the basement, the child who never stops playing the flute, and the ones who stay in Omelas. By depicting a seemingly utopian society, LeGuin is commenting on the fact that no society is perfect, and in fact, someone always must suffer for the happiness of others.

The city of Omelas holds a procession whose happiness and prosperity is based from the abuse of a child. In every way do they try to justify their reasons for continuing to allow that child to be imprisoned in a basement for years with it providing a sense of happiness, prosperity—life. For the people who reside in that town, no one seems to want to challenge it, to physically attempt to do something because the simple thought of throwing away their entire happiness and worth for a single being is nearly irrational. Where most stay to be raised under this corrupt society, I refuse to do so—I would leave.

At a certain extent, those living in Omelas who know about the child that suffers for their well being do bear a blame. Some people in the city are helpless due to the fear of losing the prosperity

Wow, I can’t imagine being the parents to carry a child almost to full term to find out that there baby is born “without a brain”. which if you look up anencephaly that is the term but technically the babies are born without a cerebral cortex or the “gray matter” which is the most important part of the brain, it is what helps us be human. In Baby Theresa case in my opinion I think the moral thing to do was to donate her organs to other babies born in need of a transplant that have a little bit of a better chance of surviving then baby Theresa. There are babies and people in desperate need of organs and to let baby Therese’s life go without saving the organs that she could gift to other babies I find a waste.