'The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas'
“The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula Le Guin stays aligned with the ideals of Utilitarianism as described by John Stuart Mill but disagrees with Peter Singer’s view of Utilitarianism. In Mill’s view, the happiness of the many outweighs the happiness of the few. This, known as the Greatest Happiness Principle, can be represented as a railroad, with a train coming to a fork in the road and a person has a choice to either let it hit five people or one person. Mill’s ideal for Utilitarianism is that the person in control of the lever will let it hit the one person since it would cause less misery than hitting the five people. This principle is seen in Le Guin’s short story when the Omelas people justify trapping a child as “If the child were brought up into the sunlight… in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and
…show more content…
delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed” (“Omelas”). The Omelas believe that the misery of the one child is for the greater good of the town; however, some children saw the captive were appalled, but did nothing to help the child.
This behavior contradicts Mill’s “golden rule,” “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality” (“Utilitarianism” 417). By not treating the child how they expect to be treated in return, the utilitarian utopia is not a true utopia; likewise, the short story does not comply to Peter Singer’s idea of “marginal utility,” or “the level at which, by giving more, [a person] would cause as much suffering to [the person] or… dependents as [the person] would relieve by [the] gift” (“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” 241). Singer’s idea of marginal utility is briefly described as give as much happiness as to not cause yourself and dependents misery. This idea is not recognized in the Omelas society, where the people deprave the child and cause the child to be, as Ursula Le Guin describes “feeble-minded…so thin there are no calves to its legs… lives on a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a
day. It is naked. Its buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually” (“Omelas”). The child is not able to feel happiness since the happiness of the town relies on the child’s misery. While the town is an example of Utilitarianism in effect, the town represents more the ideals of Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” rather than Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.”
delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed” (“Omelas”). The Omelas believe that the misery of the one child is for the greater good of the town; however, some children saw the captive were appalled, but did nothing to help the child.
This behavior contradicts Mill’s “golden rule,” “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality” (“Utilitarianism” 417). By not treating the child how they expect to be treated in return, the utilitarian utopia is not a true utopia; likewise, the short story does not comply to Peter Singer’s idea of “marginal utility,” or “the level at which, by giving more, [a person] would cause as much suffering to [the person] or… dependents as [the person] would relieve by [the] gift” (“Famine, Affluence, and Morality” 241). Singer’s idea of marginal utility is briefly described as give as much happiness as to not cause yourself and dependents misery. This idea is not recognized in the Omelas society, where the people deprave the child and cause the child to be, as Ursula Le Guin describes “feeble-minded…so thin there are no calves to its legs… lives on a half-bowl of corn meal and grease a
day. It is naked. Its buttocks and thighs are a mass of festered sores, as it sits in its own excrement continually” (“Omelas”). The child is not able to feel happiness since the happiness of the town relies on the child’s misery. While the town is an example of Utilitarianism in effect, the town represents more the ideals of Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” rather than Singer’s “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.”