FREE ESSAY ON THE ONES WHO WALK AWAY FROM OMELAS

THE ONES WHO WALK AWAY FROM OMELAS

In the story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, two points of view are introduced. The
Kantian point of view is contrasted with the Utilitarian point of view. In the story
there is a city named Omelas, in which a single child suffers so that the community may
live with great happiness. Most of the community accepts the fact that one child must
suffer for happiness to exist. However, the odd citizen becomes so disgusted with the
fact the child is allowed to suffer that they leave Omelas for good. In this essay, one
character will be a Utilitarian and another character will be Kantian. The two characters
will debate the issue of sacrificing one person for the good of the community, and they
will answer the question, "Would you walk away from Omelas?" The first character is named
Sandra, and the other is named Ben. Finally, this essay assumes that Omelas is a unique
city on the planet earth. 
Ben: I went to look at him yesterday. 
Sandra: Who did you go look at?
Ben: You know... him, the one locked up in the basement of the old church. I finally got
up enough courage to go and see what the sacrificed one really looks like.
Sandra: I don't like how he is just called the sacrificed one. I'm sure he must have a
name. Everybody has a name...that's just part of what make us a person.
Ben: What do you mean!? He needs no name. Why would he need a name? Nobody is allowed to
talk to him, because that might give the impression that we actually care about him. You
only need a name if you interact with other people, just like how when I talk to you I
call you by your name. I will never talk to the sacrificed one. 
Sandra: Never? But that doesn't show any respect for him... he must deserve at least a
little respect. Every person on Earth deserves respect, even the sacrificed one.
Ben: He doesn't deserve any respect. Giving him respect could jeopardize all that me and
you have. His pain allows us to live with such joy. Our parents lived like this, and
their parents lived like this. It is almost like happiness is a tradition in Omelas. 
Sandra: Sure, Omelas has always sacrificed a child in order to achieve happiness for the
community, but why doesn't the rest of the world also do this. If it is such a good idea,
why too doesn't every city on the planet adopt this method?
Ben: Every other city is ignorant to the benefits that are achieved through a sacrifice.
I feel that the world would be a much better place if everybody lived such as we do. Our
life is a life of constant utopia.
Sandra: I think that the world doesn't adopt our idea about sacrificing because they feel
that it is morally wrong. Quite frankly I would have to agree with the rest of the world.
How would you feel if someone you loved were forced into a life of suffering and
confinement? If it was someone such as your sister or brother? What if it was you who was
chosen to suffer? Would it still be acceptable if it was you who had to live a life of
pain and isolation? I think that most people in the world would argue that it is immoral
to allow someone to suffer.
Ben: Your argument against sacrificing is based on morals, however decisions shouldn't be
made based on morals, but rather on the outcome of those decisions. Actions, such as
sacrificing, should be measured according to the overall happiness it will achieve. When
weighed out, sacrificing produces much more happiness than if we didn't sacrifice.
Therefore, allowing one person to suffer is perfectly acceptable. It is our duty to make
sure that maximum happiness is obtained for all.
Sandra: Sacrificing this child is an action that has no moral worth. You allow this child
to be sacrificed because you want to be happy for the rest of your life. You're not
accepting the sacrifice of this child because it's your duty; you're doing it because you
want to be happy. Therefore your acceptance holds no moral worth.
Ben: I accept the suffering based on the overall consequences. Overall, the suffering is
justified and thus acceptable. The happiness of the whole city greatly outweighs the
suffering of the child, and this makes the sacrifice okay.
Sandra: The fact is, a child's life has been ruined. I can't see how this is justified. 
Ben: Let me give you an example of how a sacrifice was made in order to protect the whole
world, including Omelas. World War II was ended because of a great sacrifice. A bomb was
dropped on a city in Japan and a large number of people were killed. This destruction
caused Japan to surrender, and ended the war. Had the bomb not been dropped, the war
would have continued and millions of people would have died. Omelas lives in freedom
because the bomb was dropped and the war was ended. This is a case of how the resulting
happiness of the whole world, outweighed the sadness caused by the bomb. Would you rather
live without freedom, without happiness?
Sandra: Of course I want to have freedom and be happy. But there must be another way to
achieve these things. Why must we sacrifice a person? This child is a rational human, he
has rights, and he deserves respect.
Ben: How can you argue that he is rational. When I went to see him he was about as
irrational as anyone could be. He is an imbecile.... he is afraid of mops and he just
sits there and whines quietly, "eh-haa, eh-haa." He has no idea of what happiness is, and
probably never will. Therefore, I have no problem with allowing him to stay locked up and
suffer so that the rest of the city may live a perfectly happy life. You argue that it is
wrong to keep him locked up because he is a rational being, but I have just explained why
he is not rational. Do you still think that his suffering is not justified?
Sandra: I can see how you would argue that he is not a rational person, but don't you
feel guilty because you get to enjoy happiness while someone suffers. 
Ben: Let me ask you a question. Would you rather live in a different city? In a city
where there are worries, murders, hurt, and sadness? Could you give up constant
happiness? Could you walk away from Omelas?
Sandra: Honestly, I couldn't live somewhere that didn't bring me happiness all the time.
I guess that being a part of the Omelas community forces me to accept the fact that
someone must suffer for me to enjoy life to the fullest. 
Ben: Don't forget that the suffering child will never know what happiness is. He is an
irrational child. He is barely functioning...he is an imbecile. Having the child suffer
is justified because the happiness of the whole city outweighs the suffering of the
child. I don't see how anyone could ever leave a life of continual happiness. I don't see
how anyone would walk away from Omelas. I would never walk away. 
Sandra: I too, could not imagine my life without continual happiness. But, my decision to
never leave Omelas is an interesting decision. I've just realized that I came to my
decision through the same method that you used for your arguments. By this I mean, that I
came to my decision through weighing out the consequences of leaving and staying. I came
to the conclusion that staying would give me the greatest happiness. I even took into
consideration the fact that I may feel guilty because I know that a child is suffering so
that I may live a life that is full of pleasure and joy. I now see that the suffering of
the child is in fact justified because a whole city gets to live a life of pure
happiness.