The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas

I think that, given the choice, I would walk away from Omelas. The incredible happiness of the citizens is described using vague terms and often comes across as insincere. In contrast, the terrible price the child has to pay for their society is excruciatingly detailed. When discussing the luxuries that the people enjoy, the speaker creates and impressive list that encompasses all sorts of great and wonderful things, but then she says, "Or they could have none of that; it doesn't matter. As you like it," (Le Guin). By refusing to commit to an idea or definition about what things these people enjoy in life, she prevents the objective evaluation of merits. When she does speak of concrete elements of the city, she mentions things with almost universal appeal, such as drugs and sex, to prove that there is reason for people to be happy there. However by saying, "I really don't think many of them need to take drooz," (Le Guin), she calls into question whether or not the happiness people feel is sincere.  After pages of explanation and justification for the speaker's thoughts on the grand ideas of Omelas, the writing becomes extremely detailed. When she describes the child who is suffering for the sake of the citizen's happy lives a very clear picture is painted. Every detail of the room, the dimensions, the objects, the dirt, and the feelings of the child inside, is stated as fact. She does not say "I think", or some other term of uncertainty. The suffering of the child is indisputable. I would rather walk away from the certain cruelty Omelas than stay for the nebulous ideas of happiness.