In "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," the people of Omelas are indeed generally happy. The problem is that such happiness is entirely artificial, as it's based on the suffering of a small child. When some people find out that their happiness depends on the continued suffering of the child, they choose to walk away from the town. However, the majority remain, an indication that they regard their happiness as more important than that of a suffering child.

Agreeing with the statement about happiness involves defining terms like "necessary," "destructive," and "just discrimination." The concept suggests happiness arises from balancing needs, comforts, and harm. However, this view may be too materialistic, overlooking ethical and intangible aspects like peace of mind. The story of Omelas questions whether material prosperity, when rooted in injustice, can lead to true happiness, indicating that ethical considerations are crucial for genuine fulfillment.

The people of Omelas are not simple, and they are not happy. They accept that there is a child in the basement who suffers for their own happiness. Only those who can't abide another's suffering leave Omelas, because they realize that true happiness cannot be bought by intentionally degrading someone else.

Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" explores the theme of happiness intertwined with suffering. The story depicts a utopian city where the joy of its citizens depends on the misery of a single child, raising moral questions about the cost of happiness. The setting, described as idyllic, contrasts with the dark secret of the child's suffering, prompting some citizens to leave Omelas in moral protest. This narrative critiques utilitarianism, highlighting the ethical dilemma of sacrificing one for the happiness of many.