Firstly, from “The ones who walk away from Omelas”, I gained new perspectives on what makes actions “better”, and what makes decisions moral. In the perspective of the people living in Omelas who experience extreme happiness at the expense of a tortured child, they are living in a near-perfect city. The total happiness of the city far outweighs the pain of one child. If anyone in the city were to do something different, such as free the child, leave the city, or escape from the cell (in the case of the child) the net happiness of the city would decrease, making any of those actions immoral. Another perspective I have considered is of those who would attempt to free the child. To them, every human has fundamental rights, and there are fundamental rules of morality which should be followed regardless of any negative consequences they may have. Additionally, every human should be considered as ends in themselves, and not means in other people's lives, like the child in Omelas or Truman in The Truman Show, who are used as tools for others’ benefit. Although this moral code does not always maximize happiness, actions are clearly right or wrong, and when universally applied, can create a functioning society.

In each of these cases, knowledge does not change what is right and wrong, but can still affect the decisions and livelihoods of those who receive it. In the first case, where the morality of an action is determined by the total benefit it creates for all people, there is a spectrum of morality for every situation in which an action can be performed. In this case, more knowledge is always better, as possible moral and immoral decisions already exist for every scenario, and more knowledge simply provides a better understanding of more of these choices, allowing for a better choice to be made. An example of this occurs in Oedipus Rex. Oedipus is unknowingly cursing Thebes by ruling it. The moral decision for him to make would be to stop ruling, but he is unaware of this until he learns the truth about his family. Although the truth may hurt Oedipus as an individual and force him to make a tough decision, it helps him increase the total happiness of Thebes by uncovering choices that were previously hidden to him. In the second case, right and wrong actions already exist as well, but there is no spectrum, and they are clearly right or wrong because they follow moral guidelines. Knowledge, then, does not affect what decision one should make, and therefore knowing more is sometimes better and sometimes worse, only depending on whether the information hurts the receiver or not.

Lastly, regardless of how one determines actions to be good or evil, I believe that they have a responsibility to society to act in ways that they understand to be good. In order for society to function, most people must be able to be taught some form of morals and act in ways they deem to be good.

In conclusion, if you believe that actions should be judged by their consequences, knowing more is always better, as it allows for more informed decisions which result in better consequences. If you believe that actions that conform to a set of moral laws are good, and other actions are evil, then knowing more is better when the knowledge makes the individual happier, and is worse otherwise. Regardless of which theory you believe in, you are responsible for acting on those understandings and attempting to make moral decisions for the good of society.