Is there such a thing as pure happiness? From my standpoint, the feeling of being happy and content in not one specific item, but one’s interpretation of life; something that cannot be physically touched, but more of a mindset in which you react. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from The Omelas” by Le Guin, is foreseen as a place where nothing but happiness exists, it has already been chosen for the people; until it is not. Sooner than later, the discovery that this is too good to be true society is just that. Despite everything else, this is a no-brainer, based on right and wrong, no matter who you are, pure joy and happiness should not ever depend on someone else having to suffer. In the novel, the ”upper class,” the civilians, seem to have embraced a philosophy focused on egalitarian values by placing the well-being of a city as the main concern, not the kid.
This scenario is a fascinating twist on the separation of classes since in a capitalist system, the ”exploited” class typically represents the bulk of the population, the working class. In the Omelas, even if the state of the child is arguably worse than the average middle-class resident, there is only one child who must sacrifice (believed by the citizens) to uphold the ”egalitarian” tradition. But while class disparity is an important component of this narrative, it is also a set-up to investigate one's capacity to make choices by comparing the people who left Omelas after discovering the true roots of their happiness to those who remain in the area. Unlike other people in Omelas who actively attempt to rationalize their total power over the child, the individuals who left are the ones who effectively defend their conscience by taking the moral course of action.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The narrator assumes that the reader will have a hard time believing that the Omelas is a real place because it is described as a kind of utopia; it only becomes “real” when we understand that its perfection is made possible by the misery and subjugation of a single child. Omelas is a commentary on the liberal impulse to imagine a more perfect society; in this case, the story is about the hollowness of such fantasies and the impossibility of imagining happiness without some form of misery for comparison. This is why the destination of the ones who leave the Omelas is unknown: presumably, unable to live in a place where such compromises are not necessary. In this sense, the story is connected to real life not only by critiquing modern society but by suggesting that the only way to eliminate subjugation is to “leave” Omelas or to invent a truly radical, completely different way of life.
This idea of a falsified “perfect” society, is quite similar to the American dream. Living in a diverse state/country where there are many cultures surrounding us, it saddens me to see this so-called dream become an unrealistic vision for some. A family friend of mine came to America in hopes of a better life for her and her children. While she can have the freedom she once was not granted in her country before, she soon realizes that this also comes at a price. This happiness she strives for is soon put on hold, as they are denied the help, resources, proper shelter, and work she was once promised. She soon realizes that providing for her family may require unethical actions. This was the last thing she expected when coming to the “Promise Land”. But in comparison to the Omelas, she was doing what she thought was best to survive.
The Omelas were turning a blind eye to deliberate, inhumane torture. In effect, this situation did not specifically require someone to suffer physically, to be happy, but rather walk into an unknown, expecting a completely different outcome. Leaving Omelas, sadly, may never affect the dynamics in position. Leaving does not save the child from hurting, nor would it solve these problems other than the absence of the person from it. While guilt correlated with their well-being is renounced, all who walk away from Omelas only diminish the number of individuals for whom the child suffers. Just like my friend, once they reached America, despite their trials and hardship, would they be better off going back to the horrible living conditions they once had? Or does doing what is best for yourself/and or your family regardless of the journey, right or wrong, justify the process? A system that creates more happiness than it does misery, dictating that it is right and moral regardless of the suffering it causes. To “fix” this corrupt system, we all must stand together, or this cycle will continue to happen.
The fulfillment of all those who live there relies on an innocent child's pain. If the child's quality of life is to be changed from full suffering, in word or deed, as such Omelas' prosperity would be destroyed. By putting us in Omela's representational fantasy world, Le Guin allows us to come to terms with our ability to grasp satisfaction and its variables. Le Guin states, “It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science” (Le Guin, 1973). Working or living in Omelas, being dependent on it for survival and prosperity, makes your happiness the result of the child. No matter how small the contribution, you will always be partially responsible for the horrendous misery of an innocent child. As long as you lived within the walls of Omelas, your happiness would never be your own and your hands would never be clean. Therefore, leaving the system, and severing the connection between the child’s suffering and your happiness is the right thing to do.
Stuck on your essay?
