Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas Utilitarianism

Ursula Le Guin’s story, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, presents an ethical problem by creating a perfect society that is being enjoyed by many at the expense of one child. The dilemma is introduced through the existence of the child and the fact that this “it” is being tortured for the greater good. It essentially implies that the happiness of everyone else in the city of Omelas lies on the misery of one. This sort of setting raises a number of questions at the very core of morality. What is, morally, the right thing to do in this situation? The conditions represented in the story demonstrate a drawback of utilitarianism. The basic idea of utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill lies on the principle that one must choose the course of action …show more content…
Using Ursula Le Guin’s short story The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas, I will explore two ethical theories from two philosophers. The first will be that of John Stuart Mill in his Utilitarianism. Using the concept of maximizing the greatest good for the greatest number, Mill would argue that the torture of the child ought to continue because it would be more beneficial to the citizens of Omelas than the child’s release would be to the child themselves. The second ethical theory is that of Immanuel Kant and his Categorical Imperative. Kant would argue that in using the child as a means to their arbitrary quasi-utopic ends, the citizens of Omelas have violated not only the categorical imperative, but the child’s personhood as well. After explaining the two moral theories, I present my own argument that even if all the world’s ills were to be cured with the torture of one person, it would still be immoral to do so. My argument will have Kantian basis. But before the different ethical theories are put forth, an exposition of the story is in …show more content…
Following this doctrine, Mill would argue that it is almost patently true that the principle would endorse the torture of the child. Reason enough as it is to torture the child, the Utilitarian principle has an even deeper meaning embedded within. Utilitarians are not only concerned with the amount of happiness, but also with the quality of happiness and beings competent enough to appreciate it. The child, if freed, does not have the mental capacities to benefit from its freedom. The citizens of Omelas, however, are cognizant of the child and its situation; as a result, they are able to appreciate their values, which are reflected not only in their morals, but in their art and architecture as well. So, according to Utilitarianism, primacy in Omelas should be given to its citizens and not to the child, because this not only increases the overall sum of happiness, but also reaffirms the position of the citizens of Omelas as beings with higher faculties that can fully benefit from their choice to endorse the child’s