Walking Away from Omelas

I was introduced to Le Guin’s fantasy fiction books through friends, but can see how some can be caught off guard, not expecting morality through fiction with the collection of non-fiction articles introduced in this course. It’s an allegory presenting the moral perspective of walking away from “utopia.” The question is whether the happiness of a society can exist at the expense of the freedom and happiness of an individual, innocent child.

Kyes:

"After the narrator has the reader thinking that this city couldn't possibly exist because of all of the "smiles, bells" and "parades," (Le Guin 951) the narrator asks the reader if they believe in the city and in the joy. The narrator suspects the reader will say no, so she decides to describe one more thing that will cause the reader to question the believability of the city. By describing the child who is locked in the dark cellar, the author is telling the reader that this town has its dark secrets too."

I view society from a voluntaryist position, so I see the moral vacuum created by building a utopia on the suffering of an innocent, that the society can not be said to be moral as a result. Rather than continue to be a part of the society, those who see the moral deficiency of the society choose to walk away from it. They choose to withdraw their consent and their support for that society. It’s an evil that can only be allowed to persist if society chooses to ignore it, to force it into the shadows where the atrocity can not be seen.

A society such as that is quite backwards. Can we live in a society at the expense of others? I think that this ties in to the area of positive liberty, where society promotes “equality” through forced redistribution and strong laws by a representative body, rather than through consensual or voluntary interactions and exchanges. This relies on the presence of a state which has the power (and often uses it to the detriment of society) to infringe upon natural, individual rights. If we know that our neighbor is being robbed to provide for services which we want, yet we choose to take advantage of those services anyway, we place ourselves in the position of being both the members of Le Guin’s Omelas as well as the innocent child in the dark cellar.

Ursula Le Guin - The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas (PDF download)

I believe that many readers miss the moral of the story by focusing on the effects on the innocent child, which is also an intention of the story. I suspect that many readers are unable to get past this initial shock to start to dissect how Le Guin's story applies to society in general, rather than to this fictional town. The underlying idea is that how can a society be just when it's happiness is provided at the expense of others.

From my perspective, I see the social criticism being focused on the lack of voluntaryism in society. We are forced to provide tribute to the state (Taxation is Theft), with which wars are waged against innocents around the world (Nixon's enabling of the Cambodian Genocide Program during the Vietnam war, for example). How anyone could continue to participate in a society at the expense of others without their consent is beyond me.

Walking away from such an immoral system is the only real choice, for continuing to thrive at the expense of others is no better than being directly responsible for the oppression. Being once removed through a system of government no less lays the responsibility of that government on the heads of it's willing participants, even those who simply contribute their tribute in order to maintain the system itself. This is the social criticism that Le Guin likely intended, hoping the reader would see the parallels between the fictional society and the one we live in today.

It's not about walking away from those in need, but from those who support such oppression. Many of us have been in the position of the innocent child, exploited by the utopian society, rather than one of those benefiting from the exploit itself. In that regard, I believe that many of us are actually on both sides of the exchange; we are both the innocent child and the parasitic society. We benefit from our own exploitation, yet most can not see it for what it is. A society that functions in that manner brings me great sadness. Omelas is not the exploited child, but the society that thrives on the exploitation. Only when we can see the exploitation for what is it do we give ourselves the opportunity to walk away from Omelas.

Omelas is the physical town in the story, but I believe that it refers to a social system. Walking away could also mean simply withdrawing from an immoral social or political system, without moving physically. Looking back in history, think of the fascistic and tyrannical states which rose up and oppressed their populations. As the people themselves rose up in opposition and threw off that oppression, I see that as walking away without moving. If they were able to move to a more free society without actually leaving their homes and families, by simply withdrawing consent to be governed by despots and tyrants, did they any less walk away from Omelas in a metaphoric sense. Staying in Omelas might be a metaphor for consenting to tyranny.

I am a Voluntaryist. I see a possibility for a free society without regulation or laws, where individuals choose to respect the rights of others for the better of society. I'm a bit idealistic, but as they say, "aim for the moon, if you miss, you'll still be amongst the stars." I've focused much of my independent studies on economics, philosophy, and psychology to better understand Human Action. By walking away from one thing, we are walking toward something else, something potentially better.

The metaphor actually reminds me of an example Richard Tarnas' The Passion of the Western Mind, where he introduces Plato's Allegory of the Cave through dialog. Plato's Socrates presents the idea of a prisoner in a cave, chained to a wall, their gaze fixed on an opposite, empty wall. A source of light projects shadows in front of them, which they misinterpret to be actual forms, rather than representations of actual forms. The prisoners can not see the objects creating the shadows themselves. The shadows are the closest thing to the real world that the prisoners see. The philosopher is one who sees the shadows for what they are. He frees his mind by having the ability to differentiate between reality and illusion.

Willfully ignoring the despair of the child on which the utopian society is dependent is rather similar to the prisoner compelled to view only the shadow of reality. When the member of Omelas takes leave from the town in protest to the moral deficiency on which the society is based, they are viewing the reality, not just the shadow of reality. When the viewer awakes, they are presented with the choice of continuing to live at the expense of others, or walk away from Omelas.