Summary of the Story
Omelas is a city that people live with happiness. Celebrations are taking over, and in the story, the narrator focuses on the specific day of the summer festival. Children are seen to be happy as they run around making noise, ride with horses in races and running barefoot. The day is clear; bells are ringing, the music of all kind and the air within the environment is just calm. Also, the author goes ahead to explain some cases of complexities experienced in the city of Omelas (Crowther, 2019). People in the area lack most of the things, but they do not see that as a depraving factor. They believe that as long as they have every necessity, they are wholly satisfied. So, they understand everything that is necessary and that one that is not.
In the city of Omelas, there is something special that determines peoples’ happiness. There exists a private room in some of the buildings where there are different homes. It is not clear as one would enter at the door and only a few rays of light are seeping through the cracks of the wall. The door is always locked, and at times it opens without the understanding of the people (Crowther, 2018). Additionally, there is a situation whereby a child is kicked to stand, but some people often fear about it. The child barely speaks, and no one is allowed to let it out. Crowther (2018) claims that the child staying in the closet protects the fortune of the people in the city of Omelas. Their happiness, music, and health largely depend on the misery child. Therefore, the people of Omelas understand the matters regarding the child, and thus, they have safe lives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Utilitarian’s Judgment on this Utopia
Utilitarians would judge the utopia as acceptable. The people of Omelas act with rightness and they tend not to go beyond the boundaries of what the society expects from them. They are aware of their actions in case they happen to act otherwise. For example, the consequences of opening the closet in which the child is locked can make one leave and never return. Therefore, the utilitarian would give an opposite judgment if at all the narration would have explained the opposite actions on the morals reinstated in the Omelas.
Utilitarianism is based on consequences. So, when there is a right or a wrong to an action, the consequences may follow. In contrast, other researchers like Kant came up with a concept which does not relate with utilitarianism. It is because Kant claims that people should judge others actions, whether right or a wrong, irrespective of the consequences. Thus, the concept insists that truth must prevail within someone even when the outcome of the truth is worse. Utilitarianism though has a different view on the matter. It contradicts the statement by explaining that, it is still right to deceit or tell lies as long as the outcome increases happiness within the human.
Immanuel Kant Judgment
Emmanuel Kant would judge the utopia in a contrary manner. He would explain it not the same way utilitarianism would judge it. According to Cureton (2018), Kant believes that the truth should be told no matter the consequences. Furthermore, he explains that the outcome of the truth should not be a barring factor in explaining oneself. His concept was deontology as it ascribes right or wrong of action about the moral actions. The actions are judged even regardless of the consequences in case the outcome of the truth is determined.
On the other hand, Kant believed that morality was based on innate sympathy. It means, when humans lack sympathy, they are termed as immoral whereas, when they have sympathy, they are moral. Similarly, Kant went further and explained freedom and rationality. In Omelas, people act according to the law, and as a result, one is guaranteed freedom (Cureton, 2018). Meaning, laws of freedom secure peoples happiness in different circumstances. He also believed that freedom of human came from pure rationality. Therefore, he supported his claim by explaining that individuals determine passion with rationality and without it, there are possibilities of becoming slaves.
Reaction to this Utopia
The story of Omelas has contradicting facts, so it is a weird one. In the beginning, there are cases of happiness, and everything in it is pleasing. Whereas, there are points where there are secrets within the city that makes it unusual and unique. The untold story of a child closed in the closet brings shivering all over and even creates sadness in faces (Crowther, 2019). Thus, living in Omelas cannot be the right decision. Everyone pretends to be living in happiness without thinking of their sorrows. They are given commands to follow thus limiting their freedom. Similarly, as everyone is seen to be living in happiness, the child is in a state that he engulfed with sorrows without anyone coming to her rescue.
The events unfolding in the city of Omelas would make one leave. With the situation at hand, the beauty of Omelas is destroyed (Alon & Lehrer, 2017). Also, it gives people who live in it grief, and they find themselves living in isolation. It all happens at the expense of another person’s life. Also, living in Omelas can be termed as immoral. People are living in happiness while others are in suffering. The child is suffering and whatever is happening to her is more of a torture. Therefore, everyone in charge of lives here should treat every life equal.
In conclusion, the existence of the city of Omelas is the true definition of living in an imaginary Utopia without considering the lives of others. The story brings about guilt with an additional feeling of sadness. Even though the truth comes with greater consequences, immorality should not be part of the lives. Thus, youths, boys and girls, should live a purposeful life with ethics and morality.
References
Alon, S., & Lehrer, E. (2017). Subjective Utilitarianism: Decisions in a social context.
Crowther, D. (2019). Walking Away from Omelas. In Responsibility and Governance (pp. 17-25). Springer, Singapore.
Cureton, A. (2018). Reasonable hope in Kant’s ethics. Kantian Review, 23(2), 181-203.
