To Stay in Omelas, by Anthony Peter Iannini, 2009

to other essays

Essay Overview from 05.13.2011:
_______________________________________

What follows below is an essay that attempts to offer an additional possibility that is imaginable but not offered in Ursula K. Leguin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas".. (Originally written in 1998 and reprinted in a Literature Companion in ~2003. I have made minor grammatical changes since 1998 but my central points about freeing the child remain the same).

I have had a number of people comment that my solution breaks the rules because one must either stay or leave Omelas and no option is given as to freeing the child. Because it is imaginable it is possible and I chose to use this option as a choice (C), if you will. The story originally struck me as horribly unjust and my concern for the suffering child would have me sooner destroy the utopia than either walk from it or stay in it.

I will defend this position forever and it makes perfect sense to me. If I was told "But, if you were only able to stay or leave, what would you do?" my answer would be, "Stay and ruin the utopia while freeing the child. Omelas is a horrible place and it can go to hell."

---

In Ursula Le Guin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", a utopian town is depicted where everyone lives in a constant state of happiness. Le Guin stresses that these people are not simple or ignorant, yet they are never afflicted with the worry and distress common in the real world. However, the utopian nature of the town and its prosperity depends on the miserable condition of one small child. This child lives alone in a little closet, deprived of love and understanding.

Physically, the child is undernourished, and is constantly hungry. Every inhabitant of Omelas is required to see the child at one point, usually during their early teenage years, and know of its miserable existence. And, the people know that their utopia would fall apart if this small child was not utterly deprived. This is where the dilemma arises.

Sometimes, a person, young or old, leaves Omelas and never returns. They may feel sympathy for the child at first, but then this grows into a sickness that overcomes them.

The people who choose to leave Omelas possess a strong human emotion that cannot exist in a utopia. That emotion is guilt. With guilt, a person can not be completely happy. Therefore, the people who experience guilt are faced with a problem and must do something to solve that problem.

They can walk away from the town and ensure the happiness of the people, or they can help the child, knowing the town of Omelas will forever change. In the story, everyone walks away, leaving the town intact. It is obvious that no option in this situation is without flaw.

To leave the town would mean self sacrifice for the benefit of Omelas. To stay would mean self sacrifice for the benefit of the child. To do nothing would be impossible, because one cannot stay in Omelas unless one is perfectly happy. It is certainly not an easy choice.

If I were in Omelas, and had knowledge of the child, the same feelings of sickness and disgust would come over me as it had the others when they were forced to view the filthy and grotesque child living alone in a closet. At first, I would imagine an initial shock, as the others had experienced. Then, feelings of guilt would set in, and I would be forced to make a choice. Some seem to deny the guilt exists, thereby remaining in a state of constant happiness.

Others are overcome by the guilt, but feel that ruining the perfect town by helping the child would be worse than doing nothing. In my strong opinion, the just and noble course of action would be to free the child and, to some degree, lessen the happiness of the people of Omelas. I do realize, however, that this choice would include alienation and contempt from other town members, along with other negative consequences.

There are many aspects of our society that mirror the situation in Omelas, and would support my decision to help the child. In any society, some people must be more unhappy than others. This fact can not be avoided. When someone drives through a McDonald’s, they are happy to have the convenience of fast food, while the employees must suffer to some degree. And, the McDonald’s employees may be happy to have a job, which is related to the misery of those who want jobs.

These differences in level occur in varying degrees. However, the difference in the level of happiness between people can be lessened through a number of actions by society in general. The town of Omelas is an extreme situation, in which the people are completely happy and the child is completely miserable. The real world can not produce such a situation because no one is completely happy. To be in a state of constant bliss goes against human nature itself. This fact, that complete happiness is unnatural, acts as a support for my decision to free the child. In the same light, complete misery is also unnatural, and should be alleviated. The civil war was fought over a similar situation to the one found in Omelas. The slaves were much like the child; miserable and deprived. The landowners and businessmen were the people of Omelas; dependent upon the suffering of another. The moral question in this situation was whether or not to free the slaves and sacrifice the prosperity of the south, or leave the situation the way it was. Leaving the situation alone would be much like walking away from Omelas. The north eventually decided, in combination with a desire to preserve the union, that to help the slaves gain freedom was the only just course of action. A nation was divided and a war was fought in order to correct the dehumanizing institution of slavery. The slave class in society was brought up to a higher level of happiness, while the southern land owner class was brought down. This action brought levels of happiness closer together, and made progress towards equality. However, the civil war was fought over an enslaved race, not over a singular enslaved child. This brings up another important point when considering questions of morality.

"Starving Child", 2010, graphic drawing by Anthony Peter Iannini

To put the good of the community above the good of the individual infringes upon the basic rights every human has from birth. If the prosperity of the world depended on a single miserable person, who would want to be that unlucky individual? The only way for equality to remain in society is for everyone to take their equal share of the problems, misery, and happiness. If any one group or individual’s happiness is dependent on another group or individual’s misery, then there is injustice in the world.

Therefore, in our imperfect world, there will always be some level of injustice and it should be our goal to alleviate this injustice as much as is possible given human nature (Given human nature, I do not think pure communism is possible or even desirable to attempt but I perfectly understand the drive towards it).

Another aspect of the story that, in my opinion, supports helping the child, is the fact that Omelas is a utopia. The nature of a utopia goes against pure logic. If everything is good, then there is no good. This is because evil must exist to distinguish good from everything else. Without evil, therefore, there is no good. This is true also for Omelas. If there is no misery in the people, then how can there be happiness? Le Guin solves this problem by putting all the people’s misery into one unfortunate child.

Without misery there is no happiness, therefore the town’s utopian state depends completely on the child. Each of the people in Omelas, at one point, experiences unhappiness, at the sight of the child. And, the child can remember happiness before it was put in the closet. Here also, Le Guin has made sure that even personally experienced happiness or misery has a counterpart in order to allow its existence.

The fact that the child remembers happiness, and has to in order to be miserable, makes the child seem less abstract. Also, the child’s suffering seems greater when it has known of other circumstances.

The freedom of the child in Omelas would have consequences in accordance with the perfect utopia in the story. I imagine the child’s misery would be like a pie, and every citizen of Omelas would get a small slice of the pie. In that way, no one person would have to take the whole portion of misery by his or her self.

But, in accordance, every individual would have some small share of the problems, worries, and guilt. Ursula Le Guin’s story, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas", points to many aspects of human society. Also, she puts forth philosophical ideas of how happiness relates to society and its members.

And, she creates a situation in which a choice must be made. Some do not realize that there is a choice and go on living their lives in a daze, ignorant of what is around them. Others realize the problems but are not able to confront them for one reason or another. However, those that feel equality is important, even for the individual above the whole, will be forced to set the child free.

The choice to act is never the easiest choice, but it is the choice society and individuals have to make in order to ensure justice for all. It seems as though most cultures and governments in the world have "set the child free", and worked towards equality. However, we have a long way to go. Most people, unfortunately, take the easy path that leaves Omelas.