In the story, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, two points of view are
introduced. The Kantian point of view is contrasted with the Utilitarian point
of view. In the story there is a city named Omelas, in which a single child
suffers so that the community may live with great happiness. Most of the
community accepts the fact that one child must suffer for happiness to exist.
However, the odd citizen becomes so disgusted with the fact the child is allowed
to suffer that they leave Omelas for good. In this essay, one character will be
a Utilitarian and another character will be Kantian. The two characters will
debate the issue of sacrificing one person for the good of the community, and
they will answer the question, “Would you walk away from Omelas?” The first
character is named Sandra, and the other is named Ben. Finally, this essay
assumes that Omelas is a unique city on the planet earth. Ben: I went to look at
him yesterday. Sandra: Who did you go look at? Ben: You know… him, the one
locked up in the basement of the old church. I finally got up enough courage to
go and see what the sacrificed one really looks like. Sandra: I don’t like how
he is just called the sacrificed one. I’m sure he must have a name. Everybody
has a name…that’s just part of what make us a person. Ben: What do you
mean!? He needs no name. Why would he need a name? Nobody is allowed to talk to
him, because that might give the impression that we actually care about him. You
only need a name if you interact with other people, just like how when I talk to
you I call you by your name. I will never talk to the sacrificed one. Sandra:
Never? But that doesn’t show any respect for him… he must deserve at least a
little respect. Every person on Earth deserves respect, even the sacrificed one.
Ben: He doesn’t deserve any respect. Giving him respect could jeopardize all
that me and you have. His pain allows us to live with such joy. Our parents
lived like this, and their parents lived like this. It is almost like happiness
is a tradition in Omelas. Sandra: Sure, Omelas has always sacrificed a child in
order to achieve happiness for the community, but why doesn’t the rest of the
world also do this. If it is such a good idea, why too doesn’t every city on
the planet adopt this method? Ben: Every other city is ignorant to the benefits
that are achieved through a sacrifice. I feel that the world would be a much
better place if everybody lived such as we do. Our life is a life of constant
utopia. Sandra: I think that the world doesn’t adopt our idea about
sacrificing because they feel that it is morally wrong. Quite frankly I would
have to agree with the rest of the world. How would you feel if someone you
loved were forced into a life of suffering and confinement? If it was someone
such as your sister or brother? What if it was you who was chosen to suffer?
Would it still be acceptable if it was you who had to live a life of pain and
isolation? I think that most people in the world would argue that it is immoral
to allow someone to suffer. Ben: Your argument against sacrificing is based on
morals, however decisions shouldn’t be made based on morals, but rather on the
outcome of those decisions. Actions, such as sacrificing, should be measured
according to the overall happiness it will achieve. When weighed out,
sacrificing produces much more happiness than if we didn’t sacrifice.
Therefore, allowing one person to suffer is perfectly acceptable. It is our duty
to make sure that maximum happiness is obtained for all. Sandra: Sacrificing
this child is an action that has no moral worth. You allow this child to be
sacrificed because you want to be happy for the rest of your life. You’re not
accepting the sacrifice of this child because it’s your duty; you’re doing
it because you want to be happy. Therefore your acceptance holds no moral worth.
Ben: I accept the suffering based on the overall consequences. Overall, the
suffering is justified and thus acceptable. The happiness of the whole city
greatly outweighs the suffering of the child, and this makes the sacrifice okay.
Sandra: The fact is, a child’s life has been ruined. I can’t see how this is
justified. Ben: Let me give you an example of how a sacrifice was made in order
to protect the whole world, including Omelas. World War II was ended because of
a great sacrifice. A bomb was dropped on a city in Japan and a large number of
people were killed. This destruction caused Japan to surrender, and ended the
war. Had the bomb not been dropped, the war would have continued and millions of
people would have died. Omelas lives in freedom because the bomb was dropped and
the war was ended. This is a case of how the resulting happiness of the whole
world, outweighed the sadness caused by the bomb. Would you rather live without
freedom, without happiness? Sandra: Of course I want to have freedom and be
happy. But there must be another way to achieve these things. Why must we
sacrifice a person? This child is a rational human, he has rights, and he
deserves respect. Ben: How can you argue that he is rational. When I went to see
him he was about as irrational as anyone could be. He is an imbecile…. he is
afraid of mops and he just sits there and whines quietly, “eh-haa, eh-haa.”
He has no idea of what happiness is, and probably never will. Therefore, I have
no problem with allowing him to stay locked up and suffer so that the rest of
the city may live a perfectly happy life. You argue that it is wrong to keep him
locked up because he is a rational being, but I have just explained why he is
not rational. Do you still think that his suffering is not justified? Sandra: I
can see how you would argue that he is not a rational person, but don’t you
feel guilty because you get to enjoy happiness while someone suffers. Ben: Let
me ask you a question. Would you rather live in a different city? In a city
where there are worries, murders, hurt, and sadness? Could you give up constant
happiness? Could you walk away from Omelas? Sandra: Honestly, I couldn’t live
somewhere that didn’t bring me happiness all the time. I guess that being a
part of the Omelas community forces me to accept the fact that someone must
suffer for me to enjoy life to the fullest. Ben: Don’t forget that the
suffering child will never know what happiness is. He is an irrational child. He
is barely functioning…he is an imbecile. Having the child suffer is justified
because the happiness of the whole city outweighs the suffering of the child. I
don’t see how anyone could ever leave a life of continual happiness. I don’t
see how anyone would walk away from Omelas. I would never walk away. Sandra: I
too, could not imagine my life without continual happiness. But, my decision to
never leave Omelas is an interesting decision. I’ve just realized that I came
to my decision through the same method that you used for your arguments. By this
I mean, that I came to my decision through weighing out the consequences of
leaving and staying. I came to the conclusion that staying would give me the
greatest happiness. I even took into consideration the fact that I may feel
guilty because I know that a child is suffering so that I may live a life that
is full of pleasure and joy. I now see that the suffering of the child is in
fact justified because a whole city gets to live a life of pure happiness.