Le Guin uses her short story to explore the topics of ethics of societal happiness and the nature of morals by creating a society around the meaning that happiness isn’t worth the suffering of another. For example, Le Guin describes the environment and setting—Omelas is a utopia of joy and celebration, filled with “a clamor of bells” and people living in harmonious contentment. This paradise, however, is built upon the misery of a single child locked away in a dark, filthy room. The stark disparity between the vibrant life of Omelas and the desolate existence of the child exposes the moral foundation of the city’s happiness: an accepted injustice. The imagery of the child, “its belly is bloated, and it lives on a half-bowl of cornmeal and grease a day,” is gut-wrenching, forcing readers to confront the ethical dilemma of sacrificing one for the many. Another example of the ethics around societal happiness is Le Guin exploring the residents’ rationalization of the child’s suffering. The citizens know of the child, and while some feel anger or guilt, they eventually come to accept the situation, believing that their happiness—and the city’s prosperity—would collapse if the child was allowed freedom. This acceptance demonstrates their emotions are forcing their immorality, where the greater good justifies individual suffering. Furthermore, the individuals—“the ones who walk away from omela—who cannot accept the guilt that comes with their happiness. These people reject the city’s ethical compromise, walking into the unknown rather than accepting joy built on suffering. Their absence plays a role in refusal to participate in systemic injustice, allowing us to see the other side of their ethical dilemma.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.