The story is a rebuttal to the utilitarian theory of ethics. Utilitarianism says that as the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. In the case of the story, Omelas is a city where all of its citizens are smart and happy and have everything they need.

What each of its citizens knows is that the good fortune of the entire town rests on the fact that there is one small child, kept in darkness and misery. If this child did not suffer, the rest of the town couldn’t prosper.

Every citizen in the town learns of this “secret” when they come of age. Most are repulsed by the idea, but later come to grips with this harsh reality. There are those that walk away though, giving up their own happiness for a child that they don’t know.

The discussion is that the outcome of the seemingly immoral act on this one child has the OUTCOME of an entire town’s worth of people who prosper, so under utilitarianism, it could be argued that this is ethical (greater good, etc.)

#2 you’ll have to answer for yourself

Interesting how you ended it. I like the scriptures and the idea conveyed (or should I say my way of seeing it according), the miracle performed by Jesus, of raising Lazarus from the dead is a wonderful foregleem of events to come. There will be a resurrection and we will have a thousand years to become perfect. Surprisingly, not everyone will want it. Many will reject it, but there again, many will accept it as well. Personally, I am looking forward to a time when there will be no more war, crying or death. When you think about a man named Hitler you can understand evil and how it can come from the devil and demons. “I have hope toward God . . . that there is going to be a resurrection.”—ACTS 24:15. Keep writing Thomas Bri and keep searching out the scriptures along with your very good expressions. ~Zebra~

read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_From_Omelas

Follow the links – then answer the question

I myself would stay and free the child