The City of Omelas Essay

The short tale describes Omelas as a city where its residents are happy, but it doesn’t go into great detail about the values maintained. The story includes some uncertainties, which prompts the viewer to use their imaginations to predict the results. (Le Guin 1). However, because someone must endure for the town to be in a happy state, the city does not depict a state of justice. There is proof that the majority of those who chance to pass by and see the lonely, helpless child’s situation leave the city without taking its pressures into account. They feel that the actions in the town to have pleasure at the expense of the life and happiness of another individual is beyond repair (Le Guin 1). The city does not want to do away with its delight to help the neglected child who has become malnourished and lives with absolute misery. The rights of the child are trampled on such that there is no none to rescue and all those that pass by to see the child walk away without turning back.

Utilitarianism by Bentham and Mill

In examining justice Sandel compares the utilitarianism described by Bentham and Mill. The writer of the short story does his best to portray both morality and utilitarianism as brought about by Bentham and Mill. They both show a situation where individuals have the right to make their own decisions but also bear the consequences of their actions (Sandel 9, 16). Their argument different from that presented by the city of Omelas describes that morality is based on the outcomes and consequences of people’s actions as compared to the present pressures. In this way, they both present that the city has injustice since their pleasure depended on the suffering of another person. They indicate utilitarianism as the basis for describing what is right and what is just in the different contexts if life (Sandel 9, 16). The people of the city hold on to utilitarianism morality.

Bentham argues on utilitarianism and suggests that people are directed and led by their feeling of pain and pleasure (Bentham 18). He displays a situation where individual like having fun and disregards pain and suffering and could go out of their way to ensure that they remained pleasurable with the activities that surround them (Sandel 10). He argues that there is a possibility to measure pleasure since it could be distinguished on the grounds of duration and intensity (Bentham 22). This utilitarianism, therefore, claims to describe morality based on the value placed in calculating the level of utility. There is a tendency not to judge the intentions of people through counting their preferences equally. According to this explanation of utilitarianism, Bentham regards that justice is present in Omelas since individual experiences are considered differently as he believes that pleasure and pain are independent and none affects the other (Sandel 12). He tends to explain the principles held on by individuals without passing judgment on their moral worth.

On the contrary, Mill indicates that utilitarianism could be distinguished through the presence of low and high pleasure by addressing the quality and not the intensity of the desires presented by people as they try to maintain an attitude of happiness within their environment (Sandel 17). In this way, Mill’s argument could support the presence of injustice in Omela since he indicates that there is a pleasure that is more desirable and valuable compared to others based on the moral obligation. He brings about a moral aspect that describes human personality and dignity that needs to be upheld since it is independent of utility (Sandel 18). There is evidence in his description that he values human life beyond the prospects and values present in utilitarianism. He argues that the ultimate human happiness will only be brought about by the respect of individual liberty. Consequently, in his description of utilitarianism, Sandel does not agree with the principles in utilitarianism indicating that it is not an acceptable policy to live by since it fails to respect human dignity (Sandel 32). He believes that its application to human life could ruin the respect for morality since it promotes ways of treating people in destroying the fundamental principles of respect and decency. He says that upholding utilitarianism is based on the use of lies in ensuring that people remain happy and contented through the situations as they are presented to them without further questioning the reasons behind everything (Sandel 36). People have to keep living a lie to please themselves and those around them while ensuring that their lives are protected even in the midst of the suffering of other people. It provides that only a small portion of the society is offended and the rest as shown from the city of Omelas continue enjoying pleasure and happiness, and they make merry (Sandel 18). A few are concerned about the joy of others as they make way to go and look at the abandoned child, but it does not make much of the effect since they end up living the city and look for a better living that does not portray discrimination.

The description of offered by Mill on Utilitarianism is logically presented and could be more applicable to society’s ethical system as it does not provide strict measures of happiness as shown by Bentham. Bentham labors at describing that the feelings of pleasure and pain govern the actions of humans and therefore indicating that people need to maximize utility over and above their rights as individuals (Bentham 20). As portrayed in the city of Omelas, he argues that moral arguments should be based on the efforts made towards maximizing happiness which goes a long way to degrade the values of morality and replacing it with relativity (Sandel 13). The principles portrayed by Bentham are only acceptable to the utilitarians with an emphasis on the happiness of many people at the expense of some few.

Conversely, John Mill in his description shows the actions in Omela as a way of the encroachment of human liberty (Stuart). He describes the essence of freedom provided to people through the respect of individual rights by having a choice to do whatever they want but without hurting the feelings of other people (Sandel 36). The argument he makes that an individual is sovereign in making decisions on their liberty while being sensitive to their needs without discrimination. As such, Mill would present the situation in Omela as a place where there is injustice due to the abandonment and prejudice of the child, making others to enjoy pleasure at the expense of the abandoned child without caring about her suffering (Sandel 38). He presents the situation in the city as injustice since the city is dependent on the plight of an individual to be happy and enjoy pleasure.

Happiness of the Majority and Injustice

As indicated in the short story on the city of Omelas, some situations cause happiness but are described as unjust. The validity of joy could be based on the circumstances that surround the occurrence of pleasure. These actions could be considered an unfair in the case where human rights are violated as they are deprived of their liberty to make the necessary decisions in life. More so, injustices in the situations could be described as actions that others are happy and have pleasure by depriving others of their own (Sandel 4). The case where someone feels pain so that others can have fun proves more of injustice to those on the side of the majority. Furthermore, the rule of the majority is not always right though most people believe that it has the first-hand information of the state of a place.

Though the majority of the people in Omelas are happy and having pleasure, there is one who is suffering and crying to be freed from that situation since through the pain, hunger and loneliness that she experiences (Le Guin 1). It is happiness that is unjust since offering help and delivering the abandoned child from that situation could lead to the degradation of joy and happiness to the whole of the city. Every person only thinks about themselves and their gain and therefore cannot make an effort to rescue the child from the situation of abandonment. People are not satisfied with the status even in the midst of the happy as the go to the place of neglect and observe the girl (Le Guin 1). The writer indicates that most people that go through to see her do not even return home; they make efforts to walk away from Omelas and go to a place where they feel there are peace and justice even in the absence of the happiness they have had before. In this regard, what makes conduct unjust could be defined as the situations that offer comfort and satisfaction to the person or a more massive majority at the expense of others. The case where a person or people have to suffer, experience pain and depravity to ensure that others are at peace and enjoying pleasure.

Living in Omelas

Omelas is a city that I would only have stayed if I was in a position of authority and would change the prevailing situations to the best of each person. It is a city that just inhumane persons and utilitarians live as they are more concerned about their well-being and not bothered about how it affects the existence of others in the same place. In this way, with the prevailing condition of Omelas, would be hesitant to live in that area since whatever is done to the abandoned child could happen to any other even after her death to ensure that the mood of happiness still prevailed in the city. Additionally, the wrong and evil habits could continue to prevail in ensuring that people remain happy in the daily lives. Like everyone else who discovers what lies beneath the happy ground, I would walk away from Omelas and not turn back since the wrongs and pain experienced by the deprived would inevitably catch up with the city and finally cause the downfall of their whole town.

Works Cited

Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Chapters I-V). Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1972.pp.17-51

Le Guin, Ursula K., and Michael Peich. The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas. Creative Education, 1993.

Sandel, Michael J. Justice: What’s the right thing to do?. Macmillan, 2010. Pp. 9-47

Stuart, Mill John. “On liberty.” New York: Appleton-Century Crofts (1859).