# data[].attributes.body
Utilitarianism is a dumb philosophy, and I will die on this hill. The entire problem with this concept is that it suggests that there is a quantitive number behind human life, which in turn implies that there is an object (or group of objects) equivalent to a human life, which violates all kinds of ethics for a number of reasons. Furthermore, it implies that a smaller group of people's suffering is somehow more acceptable if it's for the larger groups benefit. And while that may be true in some cases, in practice that is literally how people justify the systematic oppression of minorities.

Now that's out of the way, here's my thinking:

Human suffering is inescapable. This child's tournament is proof that the town isn't actually perfect at all. And the fact that the townspeople are selfish enough to do nothing about it shows how morally bankrupt living in a state of eternal happiness has made them. As horrible as it is to suffer, people use those events to empathize with one another. Furthermore, these townspeople can't experience empathy because they have literally never had to take anyone else's feelings into consideration because everyone is always in a good mood. A life where everyone only cares about themself is how we get to exploitive practices like the one being used against that child. Empathy is necessary for a human population's survival, therefore, human suffering is also a necessary component of civilization.

Also, personally, I feel like if I had the ability to save a child in an abusive situation, I would do so without questioning what it could mean for the rest of my society. But, hey, that's just me.

# data[].attributes.body
I wouldn't save the child because the people of Omelas would probably hate me and there isn't even a 100% chance that the child would be happy. I'm not going to risk my reputation and possibly my life just for a slight chance that the child will be happy. In fact, if I was the child and I finally got to go outside, I wouldn't be happy because all the people in public would probably glare and avoid me just because of who I am. I would probably be bullied by everyone in the city because I robbed them of their happiness.

I wouldn't walk away from Omelas because I would probably just die of starvation or thirst because I mean, there is no guarantee that there's another land or city outside of Omelas. I'd rather stay in the city because it'd be fun and there would be a lot of good food. Sure, the one child is gonna be suffering because of me, but if you think about it, this stuff even happens in the real world. Most of the clothes we wear are made by people suffering in poor third-world countries, same is with technology like iPhones and cars. No matter what, the happiness of one person is because of the suffering of another.

# data[].attributes.body
While a dream world with anything and everything you could ever wish for is tempting, it isn't worth the life and happiness of an innocent child. Choosing to stay in the city is like choosing to indirectly torture a child. Yes, saving the child will cause thousands of others to experience pain. However, I would assume, based on how the story is written, that you would only experience a normal amount of negative human emotions. It wouldn't be extreme, constant suffering like the child had to experience. Also, happiness wouldn't be completely eradicated from the world. Omelas would turn into an average city, and everyone would be able to feel what happiness is like, including the child. As stated in the story, there is no guilt in Omelas. The people of Omelas are unable to feel guilty that they only experience constant happiness because an innocent child is continuously suffering. The option of walking away isn't a bad one either. You'd be removing yourself from the situation entirely, and you wouldn't be the one causing the child to suffer. However, if there is a chance that I could potentially save the child, it would be better than walking away.

# data[].attributes.body
The question is "Am I willing to risk everything I and everyone else has to save a child?" It is a tough choice for me, but the answer is no. Something that made me choose "walk away from omelas" was a sentence in the story. It said, "But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas." Even though leaving omelas might be hard, it seems that I know where I am going. Also, if I end up leaving and find a good life and path, I could come back to Omelas and share my story. This could inspire people to also leave omelas because even if they are living a happy life, they are living that life knowing that a child is being tortured for it. I can't imagine living a great life in Omelas, knowing that a child is being tortured and hurt daily for it. This is a long shot, but if everyone ends up leaving Omelas, there could be a possibility that the child get her freedom because there is no point in her being in the basement anymore. Then, I didn't have to risk everything and still save the child. I think this is the best option because it can potentially save the child without ruining everyone else's life.

# data[].attributes.body
I would stay in the city and not save the child. Even though I don't agree with it, I would rather leave the child because it's for the sake of the majority. I wouldn't try to save it to justify my morals because that would only end up affecting everyone's happiness. I don't think it should be my decision to free the suffering child when the consequences would not only affect me, but be forced upon everyone else. Even if I did free the child, people would probably hate both of us, causing us to be miserable and potentially even harmed or killed. The child might be worse off living with the people whose city it "ruined." Also, this is the way of life that everyone is used to. They all know about it and can always decide to leave if they don't want to be part of it. Changing things would throw everything out of balance and ruin what the people of Omelas have. With no guarantee of anywhere better outside of Omelas, I would probably be too afraid to leave. If I were to stay in the city and still be genuinely happy along with everyone else at the cost of one child, then I would be okay with that.

# data[].attributes.body
Honestly, I would probably decide to stay in the city and live knowing that the child in the basement is suffering. All I have to do to figure this out is to turn to my own life for reference. Because of my lifestyle, I am living relatively happily at the expense of others. If everything worked out perfectly, I would always eat at local restaurants and shop at second-hand stores. However, just because of the way things are, I often support large corporations with money that could be used to help people who are struggle more. It's cheaper, more enjoyable, or simply more convenient for me, even though it hurts others. I've always been aware of this to some extent, but I've never really tried to change anything. Of course, I could make the excuse that I don't have the resources to make any significant change, but when all is said and done, it would just be a hollow reassurance that I'm not in the wrong.

The scenario described in this story heavily reminds me of the trolley dilemma. I'm sure most people are familiar with it, so I won't go into any great detail, but it all comes down to the question of valuing lives. Most people, including me, say that they would sacrifice one person to save five in the first scenario presented. However, they start to stumble when the dilemma asks them if they would sacrifice a family member to save the five. In the city of Omelas, the dilemma is adjusted slightly, but I believe its implications are very similar. The biggest difference is that instead of weighing the value of lives, we are weighing the value of people's happiness. When everything is rearranged, the question becomes this: Would you sacrifice the happiness of a city's worth of people for one person to stop suffering? This question is very similar to the original trolley dilemma problem, only in reverse. If it was a family member or someone I cared about who was locked in the basement, this would definitely give me pause. However, knowing that this would be a complete stranger, I would almost certainly accept that their sacrifice is necessary. I would almost feel more guilty knowing that I was the one to pull the trigger that ended everyone else's happiness.

Also, here's one last thought. I feel like walking away from the city works as a metaphor, but could be improved. These people simply refuse to be part of the system. However, if they really wanted things to change, they should try to convince others to join them first. In the story, by just walking away, they do not help the child in the basement. He or she still suffers. The only thing running does is remove the guilt from person who choses to do it. For this reason, I would not walk away, either.

# data[].attributes.body
Living a happy life at the expense of someone's suffering isn't true happiness, especially if that person is aware of the suffering. Pinning all of the suffering onto one unwilling human is amoral to say the least. Even if the torment towards the child ensures happiness for the rest of the city, is it really worth it? It's argued in the story that the child needs to suffer in order to teach the other citizens compassion. However, that's exactly why we can't erase suffering on the personal level. Sadness and frustration is needed for happiness, it's impossible to have one and not the other. Without personal suffering, it's impossible to feel the intensity of joy. True empathy comes from a personal understanding. The city's argument would be like if my friend's dad was brutally murdered, and I said that I knew what she was going through because I saw it in a movie once. The only way I would be able to understand if I, personally, had an experience of loss, even if it's not at that extreme.

The consequences of saving the child are not that bad. The people of Omelas will move on. Get over it. So what if the city isn't perfect anymore? It was never perfect to begin with. All of the good things about Omelas can be found in every other city. In Honolulu, we have music, art, parties, businesses, education, etc. as well as poverty, crime, and homelessness. While doing away with the socio-economic injustices would provide a great deal of relief to all city-goers, that is what's part of living in an authentic human society. Tourists love to pretend that Hawaii is a utopian paradise getaway, free from racism, sexism, and homophobia because of our "diversity", but in fact, we are just like every other stinky city. Cracked cement, unplanned roads, tents under overpasses, used needles. The more tourists who buy into this paradise idea, the more water being taken from locals, the more civilians being kicked out of their homes to build hotels, the more pollution in the air and ocean. Perpetuating this idea of a perfect city won't make it any happier, it will just make the unseen suffer.

Prioritizing one life over another implies that human beings have some numeric value, which was an argument used to justify slavery. A group didn't look like us, therefore, must be valued lower, as if humans can be weighed and priced like sardines. What makes our lives so special compared to the child?

A lot of people will justify leaving the child because we don't know if the child is even capable of being happy. Isn't it up to us to at least try? It was the people of Omelas who took the child's happiness away, regardless if the child will be permanently stunted or not, we owe them a chance of a real life.

Finally, there's this underlying peer pressure in Omelas that stops people from releasing the child. That in itself proves that Omelas isn't a perfect city, but I digress. What have we learned in every health / sex-ed class ever? Don't succumb to peer pressure. Just because everyone is being a selfish turd, doesn't mean you have to. So what if the people of Omelas think that you're a narc for destroying their "perfect city"? Your value as a human being will not shift due to the opinions of immoral dirtbags. If anything, making that decision to save the child at the expense of your reputation only makes the act more noble.

# data[].attributes.body
I would stay in the city because the city is perfect. Even though one child is getting tortured, it is for the happiness of thousands. To save the child would be morally right but it isn't practical. Destroying the lives of many happy people is not worth saving the life of one. If the child was released, then no one including the child would have a place to live. Everyone one would be lost, looking for another city to live in. Families would split up, kids looking for their parents and husbands looking for their wives. They would be in the same misery that the child was in, except thousands would suffer. Walking away wouldn't be a good solution either because you will still know that the kid is suffering. People might walk away to get away from the situation but in the back of their head they still know what is going on. I'm not sure what is on the "outside" of Omelas but I'm guessing that this story is taking place in a fictional world not similar to ours. So walking away would be questionable too because you don't know where you're going.

# data[].attributes.body
The child's suffering is necessary for everyone in Omelas to be happy, but I don't think it's okay for one life to suffer for the benefit of everyone else. Every life is of equal value, and I don't like to see how all the citizens slowly accept the child's suffering. Although they do feel genuine emotions for the child and wish for it to be free, they either choose to do nothing about it and accept it or leave the city. First of all, what does leaving the city do? If anything, seeing the child then leaving the city would make the child's purpose unnecessary, as the people of Omelas would slowly leave one by one. What would happen if the child was freed? If people saw the child free, wouldn't they rejoice in happiness? Can't they still treat their own children good and be happy if the child is free too?

# data[].attributes.body
There are two main ideas fueling my decision to walk away. The first is that it doesn’t sound like this society will ever be able to *really* change, and I would rather be somewhere which has potential to improve itself. Sure, technology and science can advance and everything, but if the fundamental backbone of the city is that nobody is to speak to this child or alter its fate, and citizens are forever accepting of that, then I think there’s only so much surface-level evolvement that can happen. If this child is the only one to ever suffer in the society, there’s only so much one can assume of suffering before it becomes inaccurate. If nobody else has ever suffered except that child, then although they base their art and stuff off of what they have observed suffering to be, if they are never allowed to interact with the suffering and truly learn, how will they continue to evolve from it? The second is simply that I would feel morally unsettled with this knowledge and would rather be intolerant than tolerant. Though walking away is a less significant showing of intolerance than saving the child, I think it’s generally agreeable that the suffering of one person is less unfortunate than the suffering of many.

# data[].attributes.body
There are multiple approaches one could take to solve this dilemma, but I personally think the utilitarian approach is the best in this scenario if I was a random citizen in Omelas. The utilitarian approach says you should select the option that produces the greatest good. In this case, saving an entire city is better than saving one child so I would choose to stay in the city. Others might say that it’s not morally right to harm a child for an entire city, but I think it’s worth a child for a city’s happiness. The consequences of saving the child are worse than letting it die. Sure, I may feel a bit guilty, but I could reason with myself that it's for the better good. However, if I'm the one in charge of feeding and providing water for the child, I would save the child. The result would be letting the rest of the city suffer but I wouldn’t be able to find it in myself to constantly torture a child. There is an emotional aspect that would prevent me from choosing the city. There is a difference between letting someone die, the citizen, and killing a person intentionally, the caretaker. The citizen involves impersonal harm while the caretaker involves personal harm.

# data[].attributes.body
I'm honestly not sure what I would do in this situation, but out of the three options, I think this one fits the best for me.

My issue is that I agree with the statement that the needs of the many are greater than the needs of the few, however, I also agree that this is a very stupid way of thinking.

From a purely logical standpoint, the correct thing to do would be to leave the child, as the needs of the many should be prioritized over the needs of the few. Literally thousands of people depend on the suffering of this child. However, I don't necessarily agree with simply leaving the child to suffer. As far as I can tell, this child  has done nothing wrong but exist, and was singled out for what seems to be no reason. I very much dislike the idea of this society existing on a single child's suffering.

Quite honestly, I hate thinking about situations where I have to pit logic against morals, despite the fact that I do face this situation in everyday life. I use products that were most likely created in sweatshops, which is basically me acknowledging that someone is suffering in exchange for my benefit.

(It is interesting though, because I have a feeling that most people ignore that part of society that benefits from the people who work minimum wages or less. By doing so, we all technically live in Omelas (in a slightly less extreme version). We are all willing to ignore that child in the basement (to a degree) in order for our own benefit.)

I'm not sure that I would save the child, though. By doing so, I selfishly put at risk the lives of many people to save one. It is not my place to make that kind of life changing decision for thousands of people.

And if I were to save the child, it wouldn't be for any noble reason. Drastically changing the lifestyle of thousands at one's whim (and damaging my reputation in the process) doesn't seem particularly noble to me. No, if I were to save this child, I would declare openly that I am doing it for my own selfish reasons/morals. People would probably hate me more for it, but I honestly would rather say that I did it for myself, because I couldn't live with the fact that this child was suffering, rather than saying "It's for the child's own good."

This society doesn't seem like it will change anytime soon, however. This is based purely on the fact that many, if not all of the people in Omelas are unwilling to change or challenge their way of life. Change will come eventually, but I have a feeling that saving the child will not do a thing. The citizens would probably find another child to replace the one I saved, and the cycle would repeat. I'm not sure what that says about my morals, but for me, saving one child just to throw another in the wringer doesn't sit right, but neither does leaving the child. However, I think this is the decision that I have come to make.

I don't solve a thing by walking away from the situation. I do acknowledge that. However, I remove myself from participating, which I think is slightly better than staying and benefiting from an seemingly innocent child's torture. My goal would be to go somewhere that could help me with saving the child, and providing places for the people of Omelas.

I guess that my plan of action would be to walk away, then come back and save the child someday.

# data[].attributes.body
I think saving the child is the best option. At first, it seems like a reckless thing to do? Why would you throw away a city's happiness to save one child? I can answer this question in one sentence. To hell with these people's happiness. I have no sympathy for these people. Their happiness is disgusting. It reeks of something sinister. I mean, who gives them the right to play with a person's livelihood just so that they can live an above-average life. They are playing a horrible game. A game that runs on the back of a child. Alone. Cramped. Sitting in its excrement. Just imagine for a second. What if you were the parents of that child? You'd be furious and disgusted at the people's lack of a basic moral compass. I know it's been a lot of rambling so far, but I have one last point. What if there were two suffering children? Three? Ten? Fifty? Where do you draw the line? Let me tell you. You can't draw a line. Point is, this game is an incredibly slippery slope and once you get on, there's no telling how messed up your moral compass will become. Simple solution. Don't play with the lives of others.

# data[].attributes.body
I wouldn't save the child because if my life was completely fine, guaranteed by their sacrifice, I definitely wouldn't give up my life for theirs. This is especially true to me, considering that they may not even find happiness outside, though, I can't say they would've preferred to be locked up their whole life as opposed to being free from the start. As a matter of fact, their life would've been nice if they didn't end up being the sacrifice, though it's unfortunate they did. And, saving them would mean that everyone else in Omelas would suffer at my hands. It pretty much seems that the reason I would save him is because I'm selfish. I wouldn't give up my guaranteed happiness and that of others just for some stranger who's suffering alone. I would feel bad. But, that would be the extent of my actions. Is that good enough of a compromise for my morals? Maybe not, but I would just live with it.

I wouldn't walk away from Omelas because let's face it. Omelas is described as a Utopian dream city. A place where everyone is happy and I 100% would be too. The one problem is the cost. A small, innocent child's suffering. I wouldn't trade away my happiness just for a clear conscience. At least, not in this case. It's hard to give up on assured happiness. I'm not sure if this sounds wrong. It probably does, but, if the child was suffering anyway, I might as well take advantage of the opportunity. I would 100% sacrifice the happiness of one person for the assured happiness of every other human. A world with no problems on its surface, is so perfect that it's unimaginable to me. It would be a mistake to not partake in the joy of a perfect world.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a difficult question to answer but when it came down to it, I would choose to stay in the city. Because theres no guarantee that the child would survive, be freed and not be caught, or live a better life, I dont want to risk those odds. If one child it suffering, then the vast majority of the city is happy which is much better than the entire city suffering just to save that one child. Knowing about the child would disturb me a bit but I will have to learn to nnot focus on the child and redirect my mind to my own lifes path. In life, you do whats best for you and being involved in the situation or leaving and risking your own life to me seems unethical.

# data[].attributes.body
Knowing that is that city people who raised you were the ones who stayed. So if I was born in that city and lived there my whole life, it is definitely possible that I would follow those before me because that is who I grew up with and learned morals and values from. Sure, having a kid in the city that is suffering for eternity unless it is helped is really bad but what can you do. It's a matter of a lesser evil. I say that the suffering of one person is justified if thousands are happy. It probably looks bad on me to say that I am ignorant to the issue but if you do help the child then thousands of people who are unaware of feeling negative emotions will suddenly feel that any many would probably go insane. I feel that the city of Omelas is an extreme version of an abortion. Couples were able to decide if they wanted to prevent or begin a life of a new human. Some got an abortion because they wouldn't be able to afford a new child. If they did then the couple wouldn't be financially free making them less happy because their financial options dwindled. So in an expanded version like the city of Omelas only one child has to suffer so that thousands of people can live happy lives.