Does Ursula Le Guin Discourage Practicing Utilitarianism?

The world is unfair. Life is unfair. The story of “The Ones that walked away from omelas

talks about a child that is suffering immensely for the happiness of all the denizens of Omelas.

The suffering child is a representation of the idea of utilitarianism, where one suffers for the

greater good of everyone else. At the very core of utilitarianism is greed, selfishness, and the

inability to empathize. Ursula le Guin is attempting to make a point about the various inequalities

of society as we know it today. Although the morality of utilitarianism is perceived ambiguously,

the author Ursula Le Guin wrote the story “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas” with a

clear and specific purpose of exposing the evils of the philosophical theory, utilitarianism,

making it known that it is not a humane or just idea, which said notion has caused suffering and

pain for a child. That in itself is a reflection of the societal treatment people have/had received.

The idea of utilitarianism in philosophy is evil and flawed in many ways. One of them

being that the gist is to bring happiness to the maximum amount of people possible while

someone is being sacrificed for said happiness. However, utilitarianism does not make everyone

happy. In “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas” by Ursula Le Guin, Le Guin writes,

“​Joyous! How is one to tell about joy? How to describe the citizens of Omelas? They were not

simple folk, you see, though they were happy. But we do not say the words of cheer much

anymore. All smiles have become archaic.” (Le Guin 1). The paradox here is that the people are

happy but they do not smile. Happiness is associated with smiling so the lack of smiling equates

to a lack of happiness. The citizens of Omelas are not happy, smiles have become archaic, old.

This is because there is a child that is suffering for their happiness. They cannot bear the guilt.

The author makes the point that it is not morally correct to practice utilitarianism because there is
a child suffering for everyone’s happiness but no one is truly happy, guiltlessly happy; therefore,

the suffering of the child is unnecessary. That, in exchange, is unjust. ​Injustice is another main

point the author is emphasizing about utilitarianism. Le Guin writes, “​To exchange all the

goodness and grace of every life in Omelas for that single, small improvement: to throw away

the happiness of thousands for the chance of the happiness of one: that would be to let guilt

within the walls indeed.” (3) ​When one child is suffering for the happiness of everyone else, fair

or moral correctness is immediately thrown out the window. This quote demonstrates that the

people of Omelas are selfish enough to think that they are collectively superior to the child. From

the quote, each individual person must feel guilty and continue the suffering of the child for the

happiness of everyone. Even though everyone is suffering in their own way, the quality of being

fair is still not present because the town has some sort of happiness but the child does not. In this

way, the author makes the point that utilitarianism is not morally correct or just because it causes

suffering for one person which really leads to guilt for the collective and not the true happiness

people seek, making the very concept of utilitarianism to be wrong. It is not effective and it

causes suffering for one person. It is a lose-lose situation if you will.

In the world, there are many things that occur, but are not noticed. By looking at the

bigger picture and extending the idea of utilitarianism into the world, one can see that the

philosophical theory is not a theory, it is a real-life remake. The way some people live their

unhappy lives causes joy for others. The author reflects the world by writing, “​But as time goes

on they begin to realize that even if the child could be released, it would not get much good of its

freedom: a little vague pleasure of warmth and food, no doubt, but little more. It is too degraded

and imbecile to know any real joy”. (3) ​The child is referred to as “it”. That denotes a
less-than-human connotation. The citizens are deciding unfairly that the child will do no better

when it is released. This idea of keeping someone captive can be seen in the world. In China, the

workers are kept captive in the chains of the economy so they work endlessly to put together

iPhones that we use but do not acknowledge. Cutting them loose and giving them a chance to

explore the rest of the economy is fairer and juster. Where the quote says, “ It is too degraded

and imbecile to know any real joy”, is revealing to us that not only is the child suffering, it is also

being mocked. This sends the reader feelings of anger, sympathy, and sorrow. The author is

attempting to touch the human part of the reader to connect the human element of the child to

them in hopes of creating a thought that discourages the practice of utilitarianism. The author

also profusely writes, “t​hey feel disgusted, which they had thought themselves superior to. They

feel anger, outrage, impotence, despite all the explanations. They would like to do something for

the child. But there is nothing they can do. If the child were brought up into the sunlight out of

that vile place, if it were cleaned and fed and comforted, that would be a good thing, indeed; but

if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would

wither and be Destroyed.” (3) ​The author is still reflecting the real world to her story. This

specific quote is aimed at readers that are young so the readers are able to connect emotionally to

the suffering child. Where the text says “if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity

and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither and be destroyed” is a direct critique on the

selfishness of people in society. Take, for example, the days of child labor, where children had to

work for 16 hours in a dangerous work environment. That is called suffering, dealing with great

hardship. The children are working to make the employer happy but they do not work under

reasonable circumstances. The selfish greediness of the employer is causing the suffering of a
child. Looking at the growing picture, one can see that not only is the employer greedy and

selfish but the people that allow this to occur are also selfish. The author voices her opinion and

makes it clear that utilitarianism is a malignant idea that causes suffering by writing a short story

called, “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas”, which is not only an isolated and

opinionated text by itself, it is also a direct reflection of the way the real world is being operated.

She is able to do this by touching the hearts of many, specifically children, of the world to show

the evils of utilitarianism and why it should not be practiced.

It is apparent that the happiness of the citizens depends solely on the suffering child:

however, the author of “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas” is stating that there is

another place to go instead of staying in Omelas that will help break the cycle of acknowledging

there is a child but not acting upon it. To elaborate, The author is attempting to discourage

utilitarianism because happiness can be found using other methods, instead of one that causes

suffering. It is fair to say that the citizens of Omelas are but helpless to the greater good of the

town. For a mighty fine example, the author writes, “​They know that they, like the child, are not

free.” (3) ​This supports the idea of utilitarianism because not only is the child suffering they are

all suffering in one way or another. They suffer from guilt and some of them suffer remorse. So

one can say that they are both being treated equally. However, the author also states that, “They

leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go

towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe

it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones

who walk away from Omelas.” (3) The author tries to make the point that by walking away the

citizens are showing compassion for the suffering child and sees the wrong in their ways. In this
way, the citizens will be free from guilt, from pressure, and will finally be able to find their true

happiness, which they know of: “But they seem to know where they are going”. This is the true

definition of equality for the child. Therefore, the author does not support utilitarianism because

it is unfair, it is not effective, and causes unnecessary suffering. The author also goes as far as to

reflect the immorality of utilitarianism from our world to the story, which shows us the

unappetizing reality of the idea. The author successfully captures the reader’s emotions making it

known that the treatment of the child is unjust and inhumane.

The author Ursula Le Guin voices her opinion about utilitarianism in a seemingly subtle

way. As the reader dives deeper into the story, they pick up more and more of the implications.

Ursula Le Guin wrote the story “The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas” to expose the evils

of philosophical theory, utilitarianism, making the injustice known to mankind. In that way, the

author criticizes our society where utilitarianism is hidden from the public view and is less

obvious to the naked eye. The author’s work was directed in the right direction to reveal to the

world the wretched, malignancy that utilitarianism causes. The author was able to see that, which

prompted her to translate it into a story to tell the world that Utilitarianism should not be

practiced nor encouraged because of its flawed nature.