LeGuin's “Omelas” reads like a 'message' story. It seems like it's telling us to "go away." But is it right? What is the message? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay. Suppose there is a train headed towards a group of five workers on the tracks. You have control of the switch that can take the train to another track where there is only one worker. If you flip the switch, a person will die. If you do nothing, five people will die. Should you flip the switch? Surely everyone has already heard of it, better known as the Trolley problem. However, this problem is just an oversimplified version of utilitarianism, which is often defined as an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. Simply put, he supports anything for the greater good. In the short story The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas by Ursula K. LeGuin, she discusses utilitarianism through a fictional narrative of a paradise. In the story, LeGuin describes a summer solstice celebration in an idyllic, magical utopia. Evidently everyone is living their best life. Indeed, LeGuin invites readers to imagine whatever detail suits them, insisting that it "doesn't matter." As you prefer.'. It's a literal utopia, filled with everything you need and want. However, he soon reveals a secret trait of Omelas. In the basement beneath one of Omelas' beautiful buildings is a child, described as “feeble-minded. Maybe he was born defective, or maybe he became imbecile due to fear, malnutrition and abandonment." This is the social contract of Omelas. The child must suffer so that the rest of the city continues to be happy. After realizing this, some feel horrible, but choose to stay. Some, unable to tolerate this way of life, choose to leave. The beauty of LeGuin's story is that, although it reads like a "message" story, there is no intended position that the author supports. The author ends the story with some citizens choosing to leave Omelas, which might make it seem like he ends with the supposed moral of the story. However, in my opinion, the author does this to ensure a smoother progression of the story, and when the entire story is overlooked, his tone is generally neutral. There is no sense of judgment about which path you choose; stay in Omelas or leave. It conveniently exaggerates utilitarianism in a made-up, yet relatable situation, while ensuring that an impression is made on the reader by largely using the word “you,” thus inciting the reader to join in and have an opinion as well. It's almost similar to a non-linear video game, walking you through the plot and context, before allowing you to make your decision. The main message is more this: if you were a citizen, what would you do? Based on each individual's personal beliefs, one would perceive the effect of the story differently. Personally, I am more in line with Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, which coincidentally can be considered a direct criticism of utilitarianism. As Kant once said, “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will it to become a universal law,” in the logic of duty, I prioritize morally right actions over outcomes that benefit the majority. Therefore, within the limits of the narrative, I would choose to leave, because I cannot live with such guilt and injustice, as to live in happiness at the expense of another person's entire life. However, someone else who is in favor of utilitarianism would disagree and would undoubtedly remain, since after?)