In The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, Ursula K. Le Guin uses the sharp contrast between the perfect city of Omelas and the suffering child in the basement to explore the ethics of happiness and morality. The city is portrayed as a perfect place where everyone is joyful, free, and thriving. However, this happiness relies entirely on the suffering of one child, who is locked in a dark, dirty room. This child endures neglect, hunger, and abuse, and the city’s well-being is dependent on the child’s pain.

Le Guin uses the child’s suffering to show the moral cost of the city’s happiness. The people of Omelas know about the child, but they accept the child’s suffering because they believe it is necessary for their own happiness. The child’s misery is seen as a “sacrifice” for the greater good of the whole society. This reflects a difficult ethical question: is it okay for a society to be happy if that happiness depends on someone else’s pain?

The story goes on to show that some people cannot accept this moral cost. After seeing the child, some citizens choose to leave Omelas. They walk away because they cannot live with the idea that their happiness comes at the expense of an innocent child. These individuals represent a rejection of happiness built on injustice, suggesting that true morality cannot ignore the suffering of others.

Le Guin contrast Omelas as a beautiful, joyful place and the child as miserable and abandoned—to highlight the difficult choices between personal happiness and justice. The story challenges whether it is morally acceptable for a society to flourish at the expense of one person’s suffering, prompting deeper questions about the conflict between individual rights and the well-being of the majority.

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