The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

1. “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin (short story)

2. "Utilitarianism” by John Stuart Mill (essay)

These prompts can be used for in-class discussion, exploratory free-writing, or reflection homework before or after reading the paired texts.

Pre-reading Prompts

1. Sir Thomas More coined the word “utopia” to describe the idealized society he depicts in his 1516 work of the same name. The roots of the word are Greek, and its literal translation is “no place”; however, as More discusses, the word sounds identical to the hypothetical term “eutopia,” or “good place.” Why might More have chosen to emphasize the fact that his “good place” doesn’t exist? To what extent can you imagine a “perfect” society? If we assume that a truly perfect society is impossible, what is the value in imagining these kinds of societies? What can they tell us about the nature of public welfare, happiness, etc.?

2. Read this overview of a few prominent theories regarding where moral rules “come from” (you are welcome but not obligated to read the rest of the article as well). Think about a time when you’ve had to make some kind of moral decision. What sorts of thoughts, feelings, and considerations did you consider in deciding what was “right”? Can you relate those to any of the theories described above? In what way(s)?

Post-reading Analysis

1. Given what you now know about Omelas, in what sense is it a utopia? How does “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” define happiness, and how does that definition compare to Mill’s? Are the people in Omelas truly “happy” with regard to Mill’s understanding of the word? Does the fact that some people leave the “happiness” of Omelas suggest that they view something else as more important to a society? If so, what?

Answer each of the following questions with a response of one to several sentences. Use details from both texts to support your responses.

1. Identify at least three details the narrator of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” includes to prove that the happiness of Omelas’s citizens is that of “mature, intelligent, passionate adults” (Paragraph 3). Similarly, how does Mill distinguish the happiness he is discussing from mere “pleasure”?

2. How does the narrator of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” involve readers in “creating” the society she describes? How does this compare to the way Mill addresses his readers?

3. What does the narrator of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” mean when she says that the existence of the abused child makes Omelas’s happiness “credible”? What does Mill say about the possibility of human happiness and the implications of this for utilitarianism?

4. How do the citizens of Omelas tend to respond when they first learn about the child? What role do individual feelings play in Mill’s theory of ethics?

1. To differentiate the happiness of Omelas from that of a fairy tale, the narrator lists several commodities, technologies, and practices its residents might have, including “central heating, subway trains, washing machines […] floating light-sources, fuelless power, a cure for the common cold” (Paragraph 3), orgies, non-addictive drugs, etc. These and other features of life in Omelas reflect the breadth of Mill’s definition of happiness, which spans “animal” pleasures (like sex or food) but also “higher” pleasures like interpersonal relationships, intellectual pursuits, aesthetic enjoyment, etc.

2. The narrator of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” often speaks directly to the reader, inviting them to tailor Omelas to suit their own standards of believable happiness; for example, to readers who find her description of Omelas too “goody-goody,” she urges, “If an orgy would help, don’t hesitate” (Paragraph 3). By contrast, Mill is more outwardly concerned with persuading readers to accept his own ideas. However, he does similarly try to anticipate potential objections so as to debunk them, as in his discussion of justice: “To have a right, then, is, I conceive, to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of. If the objector goes on to ask, why it ought? I can give him no other reason than general utility” (Chapter 5).

3. The narrator seems to imply that humans can’t imagine a “truly” happy society; Omelas becomes believable to readers, she suggests, only when they learn that some suffering exists there. Arguably, this is also a statement about the very nature of happiness—specifically, that it is meaningless in the absence of unhappiness. Mill argues that happiness actually is imaginable (and attainable) and that any disagreement on this point stems from confusing happiness with a state of “highly pleasurable excitement” (Chapter 2). Even if this weren’t true, however, Mill still believes his ideas would stand, because utilitarianism aims not just to maximize happiness but also to minimize suffering.

4. At least initially, most residents of Omelas are shocked and upset to learn about the child’s mistreatment. Le Guin strongly implies that this reaction is actually a moral intuition that something about the situation is ethically wrong. This kind of gut-level morality plays a complex role in “Utilitarianism.” On the one hand, Mill suggests that it is a strength of his theory that it aligns with one such feeling—specifically, “the desire to be in unity with our fellow creatures” (Chapter 3). Elsewhere, however, Mill cautions against placing too much weight on feeling, arguing that our intuitive sense that justice must involve something beyond mere happiness or utility stems partly from “an animal element, the thirst for retaliation” (Chapter 5). 

Refer to and incorporate details from both the story and the essay over the course of the activity. Be ready to share your work or findings with peers, as well as an analysis of your process (such as how your ideas evolved, or what surprised you along the way).

1. “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” is a piece of creative writing, but insofar as it presents a “rebuttal” to Mill’s “Utilitarianism,” its premises and conclusions might read as follows

1. The foundation of utilitarian ethics is securing the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number.

2. Imprisoning and neglecting the child secures the greatest possible good for the greatest possible number in Omelas.

3. Imprisoning and neglecting the child is morally wrong.

4. Therefore, utilitarian ethics is flawed.

Consider each of the first three points with reference to both “Omelas” and “Utilitarianism.” What evidence can you list in support of each? Can you think of evidence that challenges any of these points?

Jot down the evidence in favor of and against each premise (you may find it helpful to use a T-chart or other graphic organizer) and evaluate whether those premises still stand in light of what you’ve written. If any of the claims are flawed, the conclusion (Point 4) doesn’t stand either. Present your findings in a slide show, dedicating one or two slides to each premise and the evidence for/against it.

2. In the final lines of “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,” the narrator says that the people who leave the city go to a place “even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness” (Paragraph 14). Write a story in which you try to imagine the perspective of someone leaving Omelas. What do you see on your journey? Do you interact with other people? How do you feel? Where are you ultimately going, and do you succeed in getting there?