In “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” Usula Le Guin describes a utopic community that hides a dark secret. The story is like a thought experiment in ethics, calling into question the efficacy of ethical consequentialism or utilitarianism versus deontological ethics. Omelas is a thriving, joyful place but the happiness and health that abounds there “depend wholly on” the “abominable misery” of a single child (Le Guin 252). Le Guin’s story reveals the “terrible paradox” at the heart of human existence: that technological progress and the other trappings of civilization are directly dependent on exploitation (253). Upon perceiving the child trapped in the room at the underbelly of Omelas, residents have two choices: they can walk away from the community or they can remain within it, feeling poignantly the tragedy of compassion and of knowing that the sacrifice of one can and often does lead to the uplifting of the many. Le Guin makes it clear that freeing the child would destroy Omelas. Although it seems noble to walk away from Omelas, doing so does not change the fact that the city will continue to thrive because of the suffering of the one child. Therefore, the logical, wise, and compassionate choice in this case would be to remain in Omelas rather than to walk away. To better understand Le Guin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” it helps to be familiar with utilitarian ethics. Essentially, remaining in Omelas is the...

The good of the many is more important than the good of the one, and the ethical objective is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. If the child is liberated, then all will suffer on some level. There are many human beings who would be willing to be sacrificed, to be a martyr, if it meant that their life would contribute to the betterment of humanity. The main catch in Le Guin’s narrative is that the child presumably has no free will, and was never empowered to make that choice. Therefore, the decision of whether to walk away or to stay presents a clear ethical dilemma. Even considering that the sacrifice is an innocent child, it still makes more ethical and logical sense to remain because it is the best of the alternatives.
One of the main reasons not to walk away from Omelas is that it is illogical to do so. The way Le Guin frames the ethical dilemma shows that the rule of happiness is immutable: there is no way to change the unfortunate reality of the child. Sacrifice is necessary to perpetuate human happiness, health, and wisdom. Leaving Omelas does not liberate the child, and nor does it promote the common welfare. There is no logical reason to leave. Leaving is an emotional reaction to the harshness of the child’s situation. When a person walks away from Omelas, he or she does react out of a strong sense of moral righteousness, but not out of a sense of compassion for humanity. Le Guin notes that walking…