One of my favourite short stories of all time is “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas,” by Ursula K. Le Guin. Within the book, it starts off as a rather dystopian society, with a beautiful description of what seems to be the perfect city. It’s described as a paradise, a utopia, where there is no woe nor qualms, and where your able to live a comfortable life with no stress. They tell us about fantastic celebrations with imagery that makes you feel like you’re partying too.
Then the story takes a twist, and they tell us the cost of the happiness of the people of omelas. The cost being very simple, there is a child, being neglected and abused, and kept in inhumane conditions, for what’s defined as the greater good. All citizens of omelas are aware of this child and their condition.
This begs a very interesting ethical question, as a citizen of omelas, is it ethically okay if you stay? We have a few things we need to establish before we can make a judgment. The first is that, even if you walk away, it’s unlikely the circumstances of this child will change since not everyone is as ethically driven. The second is that as a citizen, you are benefitting from this child’s suffering, it is guilty by association. The last is that everyone is going along with it, if you leave, there is no certainty to what could happen to you.
The next questions we have to explore are simple, do you leave? Do you leave a life in paradise into uncertainty because you’re benefiting off this child’s suffering? Do you stay and live with the guilt of the harm you’re causing this child? Is it okay for you to try and lobby everyone to leave? Can you set the child free?
What would you do?