An absolute emotional wallop of a short story. What does utopia/a good life cost, and are we willing to pay that cost? What do we do, who are we, when we've been shown the dark underbelly of our world?

Absolutely stunning short story. I wasn't sure what all the fuss was about until Le Guin introduced

the endlessly suffering child

. After that I was fully onboard. Her commentary on human nature is true and devastating. The

suffering child

represents any number of real-world examples of the ways people compromise their morals in the name of convenience, comfort, and expediency. This short story ultimately asks us what is the price of utopia? What are the ethics of sacrifice? (As justified by utilitarianism). Are any of us free when one person remains unfree?

At first I thought those that walk away from Omelas would choose to take the place of

the suffering child

, join it, help it, or at the very least openly question the necessity. But no, they walk away. They wash their hands of the moral problem. This is a horrifying reflection of our society today. I wish this story was read by all. 

My favourite quotes and another member's review below:

Ursula keeps knocking it out of the park. This was so simple, yet so powerful. I love accessible and consumable philosophical writing.

It was incredible such an interesting concept. When I started reading it I didn't know what I was getting into but this was truely gut wrench and I'm still unsure what I would do. You think it would be an easy decision but in reality we live in our own version Omelas our success always comes from comes down fall because at the end of the day if everyone is a winner no one can truely be a winner. I also think a lot of their joy sentence from the fact that they're grateful for what they do have because they see where they could be. Just like when we are able to recognize and get joy out of being grateful when realize what we have at others don't. To Some this up this is story poses an incredible philosophical question and makes you question whether at the end of the day group happiness out way one persons happiness.

thank u bts

“Omelas already exists; no need to build it or choose it. We already live here—in the narrow, foul, dark prison we let our ignorance, fear, and hatred build for us and keep us in, here in the splendid, beautiful city of life.”

one of the many discussions and takes on the moral dilemma behind living and thriving at the expense of others' (specifically a child's) suffering. Le Guin explicitly writes with the set 'rule' of the child's suffering being directly accountable for the freedom of Omelas (which in turn, is linked to its downfall).

a very upsetting and haunting dilemma. it's built up to not have a right answer, or any answer.

not only did Le Guin present two options—help the child which would lead to the mass suffering of the whole population, or leave the child alone to suffer and enjoy your freedom in this utopia-esque world within Omelas—but also presented a third option: walking away from Omelas.

“They go on. They leave Omelas, they walk ahead into the darkness, and they do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness. I cannot describe it at all. It is possible that it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas." 

we're given no explicit description or any indicators on what is outside of Omelas, and leave us with more conflicts to work through: saving the child and thus causing mass suffering, leaving the child to suffer and live your happy life, or turning away away from both the child in need of saving, and the utopia world of Omelas.