poverty line. Furthermore, you can expand this criticism to address the subject of capitalism itself, which has always been built on exploitation (and think about the ways in which that exploitative element continues to exist, well into the present).

In short, LeGuin's vision of Omelas retains its relevance today. This same problem of suffering remains very much present in the modern-day United States.

LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away for Omelas" critiques the philosophy of utilitarianism, which promotes a "big picture" mentality by focusing on the greatest good for the greatest number. As long as most people are finding their lives improving or staying the same in terms of income or other measures of life quality, the destruction of a few by the system is chalked up as simply the price of progress.

The American system is like Omelas because it assures that there will be winners and losers, and having a certain number of those who suffer is seen as a reasonable price to pay for the way competition, at least in theory, hones us and causes us to excel. In recent decades, as has been widely publicized, the gulf between the winners and losers of the economy has been widening massively.

LeGuin's story critiques the kind of society or world we live in, in which a certain number of lives are trampled on for the greater good. She would say it doesn't have to be this way: we have ample resources and can find a way to care for even the least fortunate of our world's people. But often in our society, as in Omelas, the winners can harden their hearts and rationalize allowing the world to remain the way it is. It is interesting that in LeGuin's story there are those who accept the abused child and those who leave, but apparently no people work to change the system to see what happens if they actually do take care of the child.

Absolutely, this story relates to contemporary American culture. Many Americans have an uncanny ability to close their eyes and ears and hearts to the suffering of those around them. We find it easier to simply ignore the problem and go on with our lives than to acknowledge the problem and what the problem says about our country. In 2016, for example, 12.3% of households in America experienced food insecurity, according to the USDA. That means that the individuals in these households did not know where their next meal was coming from. Most of us like to believe that we are a country that takes care of our own, that we are strong, that we prize community, and that we have good moral values. However, our refusal to acknowledge that we have a broken system that privileges some and makes life more difficult for others, that not everyone has an "equal opportunity" to thrive, has created a system wherein more than a tenth of American households cannot count on their next meal. How are we taking care of these individuals? We aren't—we know they exist and we ignore them, or we find ways to justify our refusal to assist them, just like the people of Omelas find ways to justify the treatment of the child in the closet. The country functions, in part, because of workers who do not earn a living wage, who cannot even afford to feed their families, and yet we consistently ignore their contributions to the fabric of American life, and we refuse to prioritize their dignity and offer them a living wage. They are but one of the children in our closet.

LeGuin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" may relate better today to American culture than it did when it was written as so often today truth is valued only for its use to a select group or to a particular individual.

This story explores people's notions of reality, and in contemporary culture there are often individuals who adjust their concepts of reality to fit their desires. One well-publicized incident which can exemplify the selective truth of Omelas is that of the Penn State child sex abuse scandal of Jerry Sandusky. Mr. Sandusky was a married man, who often had sexual encounters with student athletes and boys in a camp situation, as well as in the basement of his house. Because some of these incidents took place in this basement, it is hard to believe that Mrs. Sandusky was not aware of her husband's aberrant behavior. Perhaps, then, Mrs. Sandusky ignored the "degraded child[ren]," choosing the "vapid, irresponsible happiness" of which LeGuin's narrator speaks.

One insight on "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is the following:

A person cannot accept happiness that results from the immoral and cruel victimization and suffering of others.

Certainly, this astute insight on LeGuin's story applies to the situation of Mrs. Sandusky's choice of ignoring the truth--or, at least, her choice of rationalization of the truth. 

LeGuin’s story is a definite criticism of any society that condones suffering. Although is was originally published in the 1970’s, its lesson unfortunately still applies to our current world.

The people of Omelas allow the poor child to suffer. They choose not to think about it as they go about their daily lives. They hold festivals and parades, and they have convinced themselves that one person’s misery is acceptable for the happiness of the entire society. How can they allow this child to live in squalor? Because they

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.

They have been brainwashed into acceptance. Most do not visit the child. They can continue to lie to themselves that they are happy, good, deserving, and worthy, as long as they do not see the malnourished victim sitting in the dark.

As long as it is someone else, no one says anything. Would any of the townspeople remain silent if they were the victim? We must ask ourselves how many times this has happened in history and where we still see it happening today.

Those who realize the horror of the situation and have a conscience choose to leave Omelas. They “walk away” because they cannot condone dehumanizing and abusing one for the good of the many. Morally, we have a responsibility to help those who suffer, whether it’s by buying a sandwich for the homeless man on the street, giving coats and blankets to those who cannot afford them, or cooking a meal for the neighbor who is bedridden. LeGuin’s story reminds us that we are in this world together, and as long as some are suffering, the others cannot enjoy true happiness.

Certainly, there is an implied criticism of those who do not accept moral responsiblity in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin. This criticism points to the pragmatism of those who justify the suffering of one for the good of all others.

In the idyllic community where the condition for happiness are "strict and absolute," the happiness attained is artificial at best: "All smiles have become archaic," Le Guin's narrator states.  In fact, this narrator has trouble describing the people of Omelas, who "were not naive and happy children--though the children were, in fact, happy."  Only the children under fourteen are truly happy since only they are innocent.

Comfort and contentment are purchased at the expense of a scapegoat.  However, whether this contentment is true happiness is questionable.  This is why "smiles are archaic" in Le Guin's idyllic community although Le Guin's narrator states, "One thing I know there is none of in Omelas is guilt."

Le Guin's criticism of society seems to be that true humanity demands true reality.  The narrator piques the conscience of the readers:

They know that they, like the child, are not free.  They know compassion.  It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of ther science.

There is always a price for lack of moral responsibiltiy, and it is the sacrifice of true human freedom in Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas."  In modern societies there are those who have, indeed, sacrificed some freedoms--or, at least, the freedoms of others--so that they can feel "safe" or live comfortable lives.

In addition to the other excellent answer, I would add that the story is still relevant today because human nature is still much the same as it ever was. The majority of people, it seems to me, would be able to justify and willing to accept happiness for themselves, even if it spells unhappiness for someone else, especially just ONE someone else. The fact that the child in the story is "imbecile"—whether it was born that way or became that way as a result of its treatment—may even make it easier for many people to justify this trade; one might ask oneself, how good a life the child could really have anyway? Of course, there are some who walk away, who cannot stand for their own happiness being built on this child's misery, but it is a minority who do so. In general, the story remains relevant because our human natures, and our tendency toward selfishness, remains as well.

Le Guin's short story is relevant today because the economic reality of victimization has not changed.

The philosophical premise of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is that the happiness of the town is dependent on the child's misery. Someone's happiness is possible because someone else is miserable, a reality that still exists.

The capitalist economic system Le Guin critiqued in her 1974 story has widened today.  With globalization, more economies are predicated upon a paradigm where there are a wealthy few as many more struggle. For example, multinational companies outsource the production of their goods to other countries.  These businesses make large profits while the workers themselves receive little compensation.  In this case, the companies would represent the people of Omelas while the workers mirror the child who is locked away.  

Some people argue that if we were to abolish the capitalist system, unhappiness for all would result.  This mirrors how Le Guin argues that if the child was freed, everyone would suffer:

...if the child were brought up into the sunlight out of the vile place, if it were cleaned and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed. Those are the terms. To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement.

The justification behind a victimizing structure is one way that Le Guin's story is relevant. It reflects how capitalism has not changed over the last forty years.

Le Guin published "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" in 1973, and it holds up quite well as a cautionary tale today.  Le Guin has exaggerated for effect, of course, but in some ways it does feel as though we could be on our way to a dystopian society, at least in the United States, Western Europe, and perhaps a few other places in the world.  This is a personal perspective, and other people will no doubt have different views.  There are two elements to Le Guin's tale to consider, first, the hiding of unpleasantness and second, the neglect or mistreatment of those we do not want to see.  Let's look at some examples of this "first world" problem. 

Consider the treatment of the homeless in society.  People do not want to see the homeless in their communities.  Merchants complain that consumers will not shop in areas where there are homeless people on the streets.  The police complain that they make more work for them.  Middle-class people cringe when they see them.  The solution -  to hide them, of course!  Shelters are one way, and simply driving them away so they can go somewhere else is another.  There are remarkably few programs designed to attack the problems that make people homeless in the first place.  But if we can't see them, as we cannot see that child hidden away, we can be perfectly happy. The homeless are just one sacrifice to our happiness.

Today, in the United States, in addition to being racially segregated, communities are more socioeconomically segregated than ever before.  This is our way of keeping the child hidden from our view.  Who wants to see unpleasant poor people all the time, people who look tired and hungry, people who don't wear the latest styles, people who do not speak as we speak?  In my own city, public housing was originally built as far away as possible from nice neighborhoods.  If we can surround ourselves with people like us, we don't have to look at all those people and be reminded that they exist. We sacrifice the poor on the altar of prosperity.  

Prisons in the United States are overwhelming filled with African-American and Latino poor people. This is another good way to hide these people we don't want to see. It is not a coincidence that the consequences of using a cheaper form of cocaine has led to severe sentences, while the use of the more expensive version has not.  It is not a coincidence that many of the people incarcerated are mentally ill.  These are the child in the story.  These are the people we don't want to see. If we hide them away in cages, our lives will be all sunshine and blue skies.  If we can just sacrifice enough of these people, all will be well. 

Immigrants are another group people feel somehow ruin their nice lives. And in fact, one presidential candidate has risen to his present heights on the platform of deporting them and keeping others from coming in.  We need not just put them in the basement; we can get rid of them altogether.  If we do that, America will somehow be great again, great because we won't have to deal with these needy people who want to pursue the American dream, too. 

The only light on the horizon I have seen has been the mainstreaming of the disabled, in schools and in employment.  When I was in elementary school, the learning disabled were confined to one classroom in the basement of the school, tucked away just like the child in Omelas.   Learning disabled students are to a large degree part of regular classrooms, and I often see disabled people working in my own neighborhood.  And yet, I hear grumbling about this, too, from people who do not want to see this.  It somehow ruins people's pretty pictures of the world. 

I would say that the story has a great deal of resonance in today's world, or at least in many parts of it.  We do not want to even see imperfections, much less ameliorate them.  Our happiness, we believe, depends upon hiding these imperfections away, our own form of sacrifice to the gods.