Analysis Of The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas

When we are questioned about what is believed to be important in a perfect society, results vary from: having no diseases, world peace, no weapons, no laws, or having all these ingredients occur together as one. In the Ursula LeGuin’s story, The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas, she explained the scenario as she describes the city first, but soon gave the horrifying bargain in order for this perfect city to continue to prosper. She stated that a child at a young age must suffer and be in misery in order for the city to be free of guilt and help the society move forward towards a “happy” life. There are some people within the city who do not find the position to be morally correct as it works against the moral reasoning of equality, only afterward a couple months or years have gone by, they soon give into Omelas’s morals. My view upon the city of Omelas are quite conflicting, as it is intended to preserve thousands of people by sacrificing one good child. In Omelas’s moral reasoning of having a child suffer to save their society has challenged me in understanding my own principals of what can be a reasonable moral. I would consider leaving Omelas in having hopes of what I might find outside of the city. By Omelas’s reasoning, rationalizing of what is considered to be the best answer for them that can save others by sacrificing only one life.

By understanding the difference between utilitarianism versus deontology principles and ethical motive, I earn the decision in leaving Omelas in hopes of obtaining something similar to our society in real life or the probability of discovering a better