“The Ones Who Walk
Away From Omelas”
Ursula Le Guin
“Those are the terms. 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. The terms are strict and absolute; there may
not even be a kind word spoken to the child” (81).
This passage strikes me as the most important passage in the
story because it pertains to the message of the story. To me, this story
explores whether one person should suffer immensely for the rest of the
population’s happiness or if everyone should suffer a little bit. The ones who
walk away from Omelas are the ones who believe that everyone in the community should
carry their own guilt and suffering. Those who abandon the community are not
afraid to experience guilt. They realize that it is wrong to make a young child
suffer for everyone in the community.
The narrator provides a unique perspective on the Omelas
because he is a complete outsider. I wonder how the story would change if a
citizen from Omela provided the narration. The opinions would be drastically
different. The objective narration is an interesting choice because the story
would make more sense with a limited omniscient or omniscient narration. The
reader would have a clearer idea of this community. The reader would be able to
understand the community’s motivation to act this way.
I think that the author purposefully chose this objective
narration so the reader would think more about the philosophical questions that
are tied to the theme of the story. The questions that I have not been able to
answer are
Who makes the “terms”?
Why are the Omelas’ against
What would happen if someone did show compassion or feel
guilt about the child? Would they be exiled from the community?
If we, today, were faced with this proposition, how would we
decide? Would we let one suffer for the greater happiness of the entire
community?
What is the right thing to do? The fair thing to do? The just
thing to do? The right thing, the fair thing and the just thing are all
different from one another.
In my opinion, the right thing to do is to allow this child
to be treated properly, to live a happy life without the incessant suffering
thrust upon him. The fair thing to do would be to prohibit anyone from experiencing
more pain and suffering than somebody else. The just thing to do would be to
allow everyone to deal with their own negativities and pains on a personal
basis.
Why do you think Le Guin challenges us with this ethical scenario?
ReplyDeleteI think Le Guin challenges us with this ethical scenario because it is part of human nature for people to blame others for faults. People, on a regular basis, are reluctant to accept responsibilities for their actions. On a personal level, this does not seem so bad. However, on a national or global scale, the effects of this method of thinking are catastrophic. On a larger scale, if one group of people are blamed for all of the problems that a nation faces, the results are devastating. Historically, this is seen all over the world. Minority groups are blamed for everything. Even in America today, people blame all of the country's problems on immigrants or other minority groups. I think Le Guin created this fictitious community to parallel the customs in our own culture. She is calling for everybody to take responsibility for their actions regardless if they are right or wrong. If everyone starts contributing to the solution rather than contributing to the problem, I think society would function better as a whole.
Delete