Write about Le Guin, The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas from The Moral Life (7th Edition Book).

Question

In addition to writing to the message below, also write how it relates to other philosophies/philosophers that we've discussed in class.
Add some of your thoughts on this topic in the 2nd paragraph as well.
AND CITE!!!!
 
Your Response Papers must consist of two paragraphs. THE WORD SHOULD BE 700+!!!!!

-In your first paragraph, the task is to demonstrate that you have carefully read the text assigned for that day, by explaining, in your own words, what is going on in a particular section of it. You can choose to write about one paragraph, or one page, from the text assigned for that day. You must include a brief quotation (or two) from the passage you are writing about, and you must indicate the quotation’s page number. Put the source [either Moral Life or Folio] and the page number, in brackets right after the quotation. i.e., ... “Some things are up to us, some are not up to us” (Moral Life, p.388). I will assume you are using the assigned Seventh Edition of the textbook. If you are using a previous edition of the textbook, indicate which version in your citation. Do not spend any time on biographical information about the philosopher.

-In the second paragraph, the task is to demonstrate that you have thought critically about this portion of the text by offering some sort of critical response to it (i.e. what you think about the ideas in this portion of the text, and why you think that). The second paragraph must be at least as long as or longer than the first paragraph. AGAIN, THE WORD COUNT IS 700 AND MORE!!!!!!!

Write this 700+ word paper unprofessionally and simpler wording

Answer 1

Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" presents a troubling moral dilemma that challenges readers to question the ethics of happiness and the price paid for societal contentment. The story describes a seemingly utopian city, Omelas, where its citizens enjoy a life filled with joy, celebration, and harmony. However, this perfection comes at a shocking cost: the existence of a single child, kept in perpetual misery, locked in a dark room. The happiness of Omelas depends entirely on this child's suffering, as the citizens of the city understand that their joy is built on this despicable foundation. Le Guin writes, “They all know it is there, all the people of Omelas. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that the child's misery is necessary” (Moral Life, p. 232). The narrative forces the citizens—and the readers—to confront the moral implications of their happiness, suggesting that true happiness can be compromised when it is built on the subjugation of the innocent. The choice to accept or reject this reality culminates in the titular figures, "the ones who walk away from Omelas," who refuse to accept the moral cost of their society's happiness and choose to leave, embracing the uncertainties of the unknown over complicity in evil.

Critically engaging with Le Guin's story, I find the moral quandary raises profound questions about utilitarianism and the social contract, philosophies we’ve discussed in class. The happiness of the many versus the suffering of the few is a core tenet of utilitarian thought, most famously articulated by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism suggests we ought to maximize happiness for the greatest number, but Le Guin compellingly illustrates the dark underbelly of this philosophy by showing how such reasoning can justify heinous actions, such as the oppression of an innocent child. It calls to mind Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, which asserts that we should act in a way that treats humanity, both in ourselves and others, as an end, rather than simply a means to an end. The existence of the child in the basement starkly conflicts with this principle, as it reduces the child to a mere tool for the happiness of Omelas’ citizens. Personally, I find this ethical dilemma to be chilling and it forces me to reflect on real-world scenarios where the happiness of the majority often comes at a significant cost to marginalized groups. Issues of systemic inequality, human rights abuses, and exploitation emerge when we consider how societies can unconsciously (or consciously) accept conditions that benefit the majority while inflicting pain on a vulnerable minority. By walking away from Omelas, individuals assert their refusal to remain complicit—something that resonates deeply in our contemporary discussions of social justice and ethical responsibility.

In considering the implications of Le Guin's tale, I grapple with the uncomfortable reality that many societies adopt similar reasoning, where the oppression of a minority is overlooked for the sake of societal harmony. This raises questions about the moral fabric that binds communities and the ethical choices individuals make within these structures. Walking away from the facade of happiness, like the figures in Omelas, symbolizes a critical rejection of complicity—a call for reflection on our moral duties in a world riddled with injustice. It's an evocative thought experiment that forces us to examine our values, our participation in systemic wrongs, and the extent to which we are willing to confront uncomfortable truths for the sake of ethical living. Ultimately, Le Guin's narrative compels us to ponder what we would choose in a similar circumstance, challenging us to consider the moral cost of our own happiness in relation to the suffering of others. The decision to walk away represents a moral stand, one that raises the stakes of personal responsibility in a world where the line between joy and suffering can be painfully thin. It elucidates the ongoing struggle for ethical awareness and a genuine commitment to justice, urging us all to reflect on our roles in society and the moral choices we face.