Themes: Morals and Morality
A primary theme in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is morality. In an introduction to the story, Le Guin noted that it critiques American moral life. She explained the story's subtitle, "Variations on a Theme by William James," by mentioning that she was inspired by a concept James, an American psychologist and philosopher, discussed in "The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life": "[If people could be] kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far-off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torment, ... how hideous a thing would be [the enjoyment of this happiness] when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain." While James believed people would refuse such an agreement, Le Guin depicts in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" a community that accepts it, allowing her to explore why people avoid or abandon moral responsibility. Interestingly, those who decide to leave Omelas after witnessing the child's plight are scarcely noticed, and their rebellious act is neither comprehended by the citizens nor the storyteller.
As a political allegory, in which characters represent concepts or ideas to convey a political message, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" also examines the morality behind political systems. The child is frequently interpreted as a symbol of the underprivileged in capitalist Western societies, especially the United States, as well as the destitute countries of the Third World. In both contexts, the disadvantaged and impoverished are often exploited and disregarded by the wealthy and successful. Thus, Le Guin explores the moral responsibility of a society where the happiness of the majority is built on the suffering of a powerless minority.
Additionally, Le Guin examines the moral obligation of writers and readers by crafting a narrative where the narrator encourages the reader to participate in the creation of Omelas. As the reader is invited to imagine Omelas "as your fancy bids," they are subtly led to accept Omelas and the grim foundation on which it is built. As a result, the reader, much like the citizens of Omelas, is confronted with a choice: to either embrace the society or reject it on the basis of moral indignation.
Expert Q&A
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."
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.
What is the meaning of the excerpt about happiness, pain, and evil in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"?
The trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain.
In "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," the excerpt critiques society's tendency to undervalue happiness and glorify pain and evil. It suggests that artists often make the mistake of romanticizing suffering, ignoring its banality, and failing to appreciate the genuine beauty of happiness. The narrator uses this to highlight Omelas's utopian happiness, despite the hidden suffering of one child, challenging readers to reconsider their perceptions of happiness and suffering.
Why must every citizen in Omelas know about the child's existence?
In "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," every citizen must know about the child's existence because their happiness and prosperity depend on the child's suffering. This awareness underscores the utilitarian philosophy of sacrificing one for the greater good, a concept critiqued by Le Guin. The story challenges readers to question the morality of building societal happiness on the misery of others and consider alternatives to such an arrangement.
What does the quote mean in the context of Omelas, and how does it relate to the story's theme and argument?
The quote highlights the nuanced and complex nature of Omelas' citizens, contrasting their happiness with our own lack of it. It suggests that their joy is a relic of the past, foreshadowing that Omelas' happiness will inevitably diminish. This aligns with the story's theme that true happiness cannot exist without acknowledging sadness, implying that the hidden suffering in Omelas will eventually be confronted.
If you were an Omelas citizen, would you stay, leave without saving the child, or save the child and risk the city's destruction?
This question calls for you to make a moral decision. If you choose the first option, you agree that it is acceptable to torture another person so that you and the ones you love can be happy. If you choose the second option, you leave and go into the unknown rather than accept the city's moral dilemma. If you choose the third option, you free one person from misery but may increase the unhappiness of many others.
Why must the child in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" be confined to the basement?
In "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," the child has to be shut up in the basement in order to ensure the continued happiness of the people of Omelas. Their happiness is entirely dependent on the child's being abused in such an appalling manner. Even when some people find out about the abused child, they still decide to remain in Omelas, as they're not prepared to give up their happiness.
What paradox must observers of the suffering child in "Omelas" face?
In "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas," the terrible paradox that the people who observe the suffering child must face is that they are willing to exchange the suffering of one child for the happiness of the rest of the town. If they have full knowledge that a child suffers to provide beauty and happiness for everyone else, their own sense of beauty and joy is tainted.
What might a utilitarian say to justify the system in Omelas?
Would a utilitarian stay in Omelas or leave, and what would a Kantian do?
A Kantian would leave Omelas, as the moral imperative to treat others as ends in themselves prohibits exploiting the child for societal benefit. A utilitarian's decision is more complex. An act utilitarian might stay if the child's suffering maximizes societal well-being, but could also argue against it if the suffering outweighs the happiness or if alternative scenarios could yield greater happiness. Rule utilitarians would oppose the situation if similar setups generally fail to maximize well-being.
What is the dark secret in Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"?
The dark secret in Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is that the city's happiness and prosperity depend on the suffering of a neglected and abused child. This moral compromise underscores the utopian society's reliance on hidden cruelty, highlighting a disturbing exchange where the well-being of many is built upon the misery of one. This chilling revelation challenges the ethical foundations of Omelas.
Get Ahead with eNotes
Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.
Already a member? Log in here.
