Inspired by Ursula LeGuin’s incredible short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.
Pursuing happiness often seems like a straightforward path, but in reality, such a desire comes at the cost of sacrifice. More often than not, achieving joy requires making sacrifices; however, when such a sacrifice evolves into a significant detriment to others, people still prioritize their own joy over the burdens of other people. This tunnel vision mindset of people focusing only on themselves often leads to a cycle of solitude rather than one of empathy and support. Similarly, in “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” Ursula LeGuin also explores how people’s goal to achieve often leads to a lack of empathy for those who suffer. In the story, the pursuit of happiness appears in the people of Omelas, citizens who live in a seemingly utopian world; however, the joy that they experience relies on the suffering of a single child. Every time the people learn more about the suffering child, they respond with shock and pity for them, but never take action and justify the child’s isolation as a necessary evil to maintain the utopian state of Omelas. In Ursula LeGuin’s “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” she conveys that people’s obsession with pursuing their own happiness often blinds them to others’ suffering through the description of Omelas’s pervasive yet mundane contentment, the teachers’ explanation of the suffering child to the children, and the young people’s tearless rage upon meeting the child.
People’s obsession with pursuing their own happiness often blinds them to others’ suffering through the description of Omelas’s pervasive yet mundane contentment. In the beginning, when the narrator first explains the alleged happiness of the people in Omelas, they point out, “the citizens of Omelas [...] were not simple folk, you see, though they were happy [...] All smiles have become archaic” (LeGuin 1). The noun “smiles” often connotes a positive feeling of joy; however, in this case, the characterization of the “smiles” as “archaic” creates a negative tone, and highlights that the people of Omelas feel bittersweet because of something that undermines their contentment. While the people’s “smiles” exude a sense of joy at first glance, the narrator characterizes them as “archaic” to not only cast the smiles in a negative light, but to also suggest irony—an increasingly burdensome understanding of Omelas that inflicts pleasure volatile while in its own pursuit. Subsequently, after the narrator states that smiles somewhat bore the people in Omelas, they explain why, as “the trouble is that we have a bad habit, encouraged by pedants and sophisticates, of considering happiness as something rather stupid” (1). Here, the people of Omelas consider satisfaction as “stupid,” demonstrating a negative connotation and the shortsightedness of the people in Omelas as they undervalue joy and take it for granted even though it comes as a lot more complex - similar to how the adjective “stupid” usually suggests an inability to understand complexity. This criticism directs not toward happiness itself, but rather to the society’s incomprehensibility to recognize and appreciate happiness; the people cannot understand it because of their inability to see their own flaw. Afterwards, subsequent to the description of the society’s view of comfort as something stupid, the artists in Omelas feel that, “only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting. This is the treason of the artist: a refusal to admit the banality of evil and the terrible boredom of pain” (1). Something that typically refers to something that appears as obvious and unoriginal, the noun “banality” often connotes lacking excitement; here, the noun “banality” signifies that the people of Omelas often overlook evil due to its commonality, which motivates artists to paint evil in a complex light rather than something inherently wrong because of their desire to entertain themselves. The view of “banality” in a negative light denotes that society overlooks the disturbing truth that evil comes as mundane and pervasive rather than just intriguing—a criticism towards those who intellectualize evil as something acceptable in pursuing pleasure—because their oversight leads to an underestimation of others’ suffering as a result of such evil. Thus, LeGuin imparts that people’s obsession with pursuing their own happiness often blinds them to others’ suffering through the description of Omelas’s pervasive yet mundane contentment, demonstrating that the naive views of the people of Omelas and their complacency perpetuate moral compromises.
Much like how the description of Omelas’s pervasive yet mundane contentment conveys that people’s obsession with pursuing their own happiness often blinds them to others’ suffering, the teachers’ explanation of the suffering child to the children also conveys this. First, following the children learn about the suffering child from the teachers, they feel disgusted, and “they would like to do something for the child. But there is nothing they can do” (4). Often used to signify the absence of something, the word “nothing” usually connotes a negative tone portraying helplessness or impossibility; in this scenario, the word “nothing” describes the children’s seemingly lack of empathy—though they initially desire to help and urge for empathy, such a belief conflicts with and thus diminishes when they recall their learned acceptance of the suffering child. More specifically, “nothing” describes more than just helplessness and responsibility—the children possess the power to act against this immorality, but they intend on not helping the child for the sake of their own pleasure. In addition, when the children try to justify the child’s suffering and isolation to themselves, they think, “it were cleaned and fed and comforted [...] but if it were done, in that day and hour all the prosperity and beauty and delight of Omelas would wither” (4). The citizens view the child’s well-being as a direct threat to their own happiness, as shown through objectifying the child as an “it,” but such a view illustrates the immorality of the inability to empathize with others to pursue individual joy, through their irrational conclusions of society deteriorating if they choose compassion over letting the child suffer. In contrast to how the verb “wither” normally conveys a natural deterioration of an object over time, the verb “wither” in this context denotes the children’s assumed vision of a rapidly deteriorating society if the suffering child gains freedom—quite similar to how a “withering” item deteriorates quickly—but such a vision only reveals the selfish idea to give up the freedom of another in exchange for one’s own pleasure. Moreover, after the children start to justify the lack of empathy towards the suffering child, they further justify their belief by thinking, “to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed” (4). Describing that the citizens conceptualize “guilt” as a threat to the well-being of all the people in Omelas rather than a single person, the noun “guilt” in this context quite contrasts how “guilt” usually denotes a sense of personal remorse for something wrong; even when such “guilt” ceases to exist, the citizens of Omelas fail to fix the issue undermining their happiness. They not only believe but also morally justify the act of maintaining their own gaiety while ignoring the suffering child; “guilt” here carries an inverted meaning, while at first the “guilt” may seem directed toward the child’s misery, the people’s “guilt” directs toward sacrificing the contentment of many for the well-being of one child. As a result, LeGuin conveys that people’s obsession with pursuing their own happiness often blinds them to others’ suffering through the teachers’ explanation of the suffering child to the children, evidencing that the teachers corrupt the minds of the children in that they brainwash them with false justifications towards the suffering of the child.
Similar to how the teachers’ explanation of the suffering child to the children conveys that people often overlook others’ suffering when trying to achieve their own happiness, the young people’s tearless rage upon meeting the child also conveys this. For example, after the young people finish visiting the suffering child, they “go home in tears, or in a tearless rage, when they have seen the child and faced this terrible paradox” (4). The usual association with the noun “rage” often presents intense anger and a visible emotion such as tears; here, however, the modifier before it changes the phrase to a “tearless rage,” demonstrating that their own preoccupation with joy desensitizes them to the suffering of the child. In contrast to how rage often brings intense emotions, the modifier “tearless”—meaning carrying no emotion—creates an oxymoron; the people seem so engrossed in their own desires for happiness that they grow numb to the thoughts that call for justice. In a similar manner, when the people manifest what the suffering child goes through after they arrive home from visiting him, they cry “their tears at the bitter injustice dry when they begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept it” (4). While “justice” typically connotes fairness and moral rightness, the adjective “terrible” right before it juxtaposes the meaning—the “justice” here depicts the people’s communal happiness, but the price for that “justice” arises with the suffering child, a paradox of Omelas’s apparent utopia. Apart from this, the noun “justice” also implies a society where life rewards the good and punishes the evil; here, however, the usage of the modifier “terrible” right before it demonstrates that the “justice” in Omelas inverts the meaning—it bends not to the objective morality, but rather to people’s own logic and definitions of “justice,” which results in the child’s suffering. Finally, after the young adults overcome their pity towards the suffering child, they try to find a justification to the child’s suffering and attempt to reason that “if the wretched one were not there [...] the flute-player could make no joyful music as the young riders line up [...] for the race in the sunlight of [...] summer” (4). Through using the adjective “wretched,” the people of Omelas acknowledge the child but scapegoat them, as they believe that their happiness relies on the suffering of the child, although they lack the understanding that such an ignorance brings guilt which undermines their joy. Often describing extreme misery, the adjective “wretched” in this context brings a negative light to the perceived comfort of the idyllic Omelas that possesses flaws, similar to how “wretched” also connotes something negative. As shown through the young people’s tearless rage upon meeting the child in which they first feel pity but then feel little remorse due to their false justifications, LeGuin conveys that people’s obsession with pursuing their own happiness often blinds them to others’ suffering.
LeGuin imparts that people often catch themselves so much in their own struggle for happiness that they overlook others’ suffering. Her emphasis on this theme underscores the lasting impact of a self-centered mindset, as it inevitably leads to the marginalization of others. The joy bought at the price of the innocent child’s misery exposes the ethical dilemma of sacrificing one person’s well-being for what appears as the greater good. Some people find themselves unable to achieve true contentment because of the guilt that lies within them, but they either keep justifying the suffering of the child or progress into one of those who simply leave Omelas. Beyond the world of the story, the theme mirrors people's lives—people should empathize with others rather than putting themselves ahead. Acting upon the injustices set amongst other people fosters a new, tangible sense of happiness rather than a false sense of joy built alongside guilt. Rather than viewing it a distraction, people should accept and acknowledge others’ struggles, as such opens a potent channel to experience even greater happiness.