Response to "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas"

The short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" by Ursula K. Le Guin is a story about freedom and the cost to be free.  The citizens of Omelas are in many ways as free as they can be.  They have no government. They have religion, but no clergy.  The audience is told that they are not "simple folk" and that they are "not dulcet shepherds, noble savages."  The citizens live in what seems to be a perfect utopia.

The audience is led to believe in this perfect utopia until a child is introduced.  The child is kept in solitude in a dark basement and holds the key to the rest of the utopian societies freedom.  Without the child the "happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships" would cease to exist.  

As the title suggests there are people who walk away from this lavish lifestyle.  The audience is never told why they leave though.  It is possible that the people leave to escape the guilt they feel from imprisoning the young child or they may leave because they know they are not really free.  Leaving will not solve the problem though.  If the people leave without doing anything then they are just as selfish as the ones who stay.

An interesting question is brought about when thinking about this situation: Is it ok to sacrifice one person so that a society can enjoy a better lifestyle or would it be better for everyone's lifestyle to be lowered so that no one person is better than the next?  If we look back at history we will find that races or genders have often times been suppressed.  The people suppressing them feel as if their new lifestyle is worth the weight that the suppressed must bear.

I personally think the people who walk away do it out of guilt and in order to escape living a lie.  I think they want to help the child, but don't want to ruin it for everyone else.  By just walking away into the unknown at least they aren't contributing to the child's pain.