1

Should We Walk Away?

Joseph Croy
Professor Isrealsen, Philosophy 101
September 10, 2013

Should We Walk Away?

Utilitarianism as a concept has many attractions, and the ideals taught through
Utilitarianism seem cohesive enough, but there is indeed a fatal and irreconcilable flaw that
comes through following this ideal at face value. John Stuart Mill provides a very clear
definition of Utilitarianism, and Ursula Le Guin provides a very clear antithesis to the ideals
presented in this theology in the short story The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas. Could
Utilitarianism provide a structure for a utopian society, or are there enough fundamental holes in
the theology that this theory should be discounted?
Utilitarianism is a sect of theology which branches from Consequentialism, in which the
validity and rightness of actions are determined solely by their consequences, where the agent is
independent of the consequences themselves. A fundamentally vicious person can commit a just
and virtuous action, even if the intention of the action was vicious. Also, the most desirable
consequences of an action determines how right the initial action is. Utilitarianism differentiates
further by saying the most desirable consequences of an action provide the optimal amount of
happiness to the most people possible (Mills).
Mills describes Utilitarianisms goal as striving for pleasure in the absence of pain, and
this definition also applies for happiness in this theology. Further, this pleasure in the absence
of pain is the only intrinsically valuable experience you can have. One can postulate that an
issue here is that an action is just and the most right if it brings the most happiness to the world
as a whole, even if a single individual experiences no pleasure, or in fact, pain from this action.
Also, this philosophy student would argue that happiness is definitely not the only experience

intrinsically valuable. The implications of this theology would mean that a learning experience
gained through unhappy circumstances couldnt be intrinsically valuable, which isnt the case.
Mills theory, although providing a clause in that knowledge is pivotal in discerning actions that
provide the best consequences, doesnt have a clause for knowledge retained from negative
circumstances. How convenient that pleasure in the absence of pain is the most intrinsically
valuable thing. There is room for a slothful attitude about life to develop here. If you find
pleasure from watching television for hours, you could justify this experience as intrinsically
valuable, when it is just as arguable that this is not an intrinsically valuable experience. Some of
the flaws in these moral structures are lain out clearly in The Ones Who Walk Away From
Omelas.
This short story depicts perhaps many peoples description of a utopian society. There is
no discrimination between people, no conflict. Today is the day of a festival, and there are
parades, musical processions, and general celebration. This society, this Omelas, is known for
the freedom of its citizens. There can be orgy and drugs in the street, and all citizens live in
harmony. However, for some undescribed reason, the happiness of this society lies solely on the
containment and mal-treatment of a single child, chained in a closet like a calf chained down to
be butchered into veal. Citizens of Omelas are shown this child as soon as they are old enough
to comprehend the idea of the child. The whole city can live in tranquility, as long as they
sustain the current condition of the child, and no one may speak a calming word to the child, or
show this child any kindness. They attempt to rationalize this by postulating that this child
would not understand happiness, living in captivity for so long. So, people live their life in
Omelas, knowing full well the childs condition. Yet, some walk away in the middle of the night,
always by themselves. The author leaves us with the idea that although the path of those in

Omelas are indescribable, the paths of those who walk away are even further beyond
comprehension.
After reading this short story in conjunction with Mills theories on Utilitarianism, it is
very clear that Omelas is a direct satire of a perfect Utilitarian society. Although the story is a
form of hyperbole, it blatantly makes the point that Utilitarian concepts would allow this kind of
structure to exist. As long as the happiness of the majority is secured, the suffering of one
individual is meaningless in comparison. This is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw of
Utilitarianism. Although a Utilitarian could argue that this is not a realistic circumstance, a
theology that would allow this kind of society to live is fundamentally flawed. There are also
underlying tones in this story that imply that this is a direct satire of modern societies, which I
would contend is substantiated.
All things considered, Utilitarianism looks on paper, but is flawed in application. No
system of belief and decision making should let an atrocious situation like this exist. I think that
this flaw in Utilitarian theology exists in the narrow mindset of the theology in the first place. A
moral structure that only deems pleasure and happiness as an intrinsically valuable experience is
juvenile, in my opinion. This theology seriously lacks any real ideals governing behavior. In my
opinion, this theology would be favorable to a society in a situation of normative relativism,
allowing many shallow perspectives to agree that pleasure in the absence of pain should be
what we all strive for. Those who think this clearly do not understand that without a frame of
reference, some things are incomprehensible. Indeed, you could not very well appreciate a
sunny day in entirety without experiencing a cloudy or rainy day.

References
Guin, U. L. (1973). The ones who walk away from Omelas. In R. Silverberg (Comp.), New
Dimensions 3 (Vol. 3). (Original work published 1973)
Mills, J. S. (n.d.). Utilitarianism. Retrieved September 5, 2013, from Marxists.org website:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mill-john-stuart/1863/utility/ch01.htm