illustration of a young boy in a cage in the center with lines connecting the boys cage to images of happy people and flowers

The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

by Ursula K. Le Guin

Start Free Trial

What does Le Guin mean by the quote about happiness in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"?

"Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive."

Quick answer:

This statement from The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas indicates that individual ethics form the basis for happiness. Each person must decide what “necessary” and “destructive” mean to them. Happiness does not consist of always getting one’s own way. A functional society requires that its members agree on some basic elements of those definitions and balance their understandings with other people’s differing opinions. Those who view scapegoating children as destructive but not necessary must walk away.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Le Guin is stating the formula for the happiness that characterizes the fictional city of Ornelas. She is saying that happiness is based on the ability to tell the difference among what are necessary or basic needs in life, what are simply wants, and what are things that should not...

This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

be had because they are detrimental.

In speaking about the happiness that exists in the city, Le Guin does not expound upon the first qualification - "what is necesssary," because it is straightforward and easy to understand; in our present day society, food and shelter would fall under this category. The second qualification - "what is neither necessary nor destructive" - calls for a little more elucidation, and the author provides this, saying,

"they could perfectly well have central heating, subway trains, washing machines, and all kinds of marvelous devices not yet invented here, floating light-sources, fuelless power, a cure for the common cold. Or they could have none of that: it doesn't matter. As you like it."

In our modern world, similar amenities would apply here, and it is true that happiness is, to a certain extent, dependent on one's ability to discern between what is a need and what is simply a want.

It is when the author gets to the last part of her original statement that the problem occurs. At first glance, it might seem that determining "what is destructive" is a simple matter - poison and guns, for example, would be things that are inarguably destructive. The problem is that it can sometimes be argued that destructive things are necessary; for example, that poison is necessary to rid one's home of pests, or that guns are needed for defense. The difficulty involved here is the point of the story - the happiness that Ornelas has achieved is based upon the victimization of a child. Some people are able to rationalize this situation with little trouble, but others recognize the deeply troubling dilemma that is inherent in the set up. These are the people who end up walking away from Ornelas, perhaps to ruminate on the subject in greater depth, in search of an elusive answer that is morally satisfactory.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

What do you think about the narrator’s statement in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" that “Happiness is based on a just discrimination of what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive”?

In Ursula LeGuin’s short story, society is held together by mutual willingness to designate a child to function as the scapegoat. People believe that their personal happiness cannot be achieved by just fulfilling their own desires. The continuous functioning of society represents a greater good for which people strive. To continue living within this society, each person must come to terms with their own ethical and moral principles. The concepts of “necessary” and “destructive” may seem to be mutually exclusive, as the majority of a person’s choices will not fall into either category. Each individual must decide what those terms mean, and then find a balance between one’s personal preferences and those of others. If they cannot, they will not be happy in that society, and must seek another path.

For some people, using children in this way is not necessary, but destructive. The statement suggests that the majority perspective is so thoroughly engrained, or hegemonic, that attempts to change society would not be not viable. For those who radically disagree with the majority view, the only real option is to leave. By doing so, they may eventually find a different kind of happiness, but the statement would nevertheless remain valid. Those who walk away must still identify their most basic needs.

Last Updated on