Written as an allegory of slavery and how it affects the people who employ it, "Those Who Walk Away From Omelas" by Ursula Le Guin questions how much of the impact that living in a society has on the willingness to act in different ways than they would in an individual context. It is the story of a prosperous utopian village where every citizen lives a life of happiness and freedom except for one individual: a child who must be kept imprisoned and mistreated to support the happiness of everyone else. For Henry David Thoreau, author of “Resistance to Civil Government” and “An Appeal to Captain John Brown” and a leading advocate of morality and individual judgment, the citizens of Omelas are no different from Americans who continue to live in a society where slavery is legal, as they both live in a world where their happiness and success are built on a foundation of abusive and immoral treatment towards some sort of underclass. Furthermore, it would praise those people who chose to leave Omelas for resisting a malevolent state, but it would also ask more of them than simply ignoring the injustice taking place there. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay For Thoreau, the only aspect in which the inhabitants of Omelas would be considered "good" citizens is the fact that they follow the cruel instructions of their society according to their exact specifications. They are the Skhlarian type of “good” citizens (see the philosophical works of Judith Skhlar), the type who follow all the rules of their state regardless of morality or personal feelings towards them. With this type of person "there is no free exercise of judgment or moral sense"; they have “placed themselves on the same level as wood, earth and stones, and perhaps wooden men can be made to serve the purpose” (Thoreau, “Resistance” 66). At some point, every citizen of Omelas is exposed to the village's horrible truth: namely, that its entire prosperity depends on the misery of a single child. Their initial horror reflects a kind of innate human repugnance at seeing others suffer: no matter how well the matter is explained to them, these young spectators are always shocked and disgusted at the sight. They feel disgust towards what they thought they were superior to. They feel anger, indignation and helplessness despite all the explanations. They would like to do something for the child (Le Guin, 422). Those feelings of horror, however, are quickly swept away by the corrupting influence of their civilization. Instead of seeing the clear wrong in front of them, they instead try to find justification for keeping a child in a state of misery and squalor, emphasizing the necessity of his suffering for their prosperity. If he had met the Homelasians and heard this argument, Thoreau would have labeled it nonsense and denounced them for trying to assuage their guilt by acknowledging that what they are doing is wrong and then doing nothing to fix the problem, as if simply being aware of injustice is enough. This idea – that the only step a people must take to ease their conscience is to “feel bad” about it – is precisely the same one he saw in his fellow Northerners and abolitionists and against which he railed, saying: there are thousands the opponents of slavery and war, who in reality do nothing to end them; who, esteeming themselves sons of Washington and Franklin, sit with their hands in their pockets and say they don't know what to do, and do nothing (Thoreau, “Resistance” 69). ForThoreau, the innate lack of drive that organized society generates in its members is the greatest danger since society has the power to repress basic human morality and limit people's willingness to act against policies or actions they dislike out of fear that “the remedy would be worse than the evil” (Thoreau, “Resistance” 73). Indeed, it is this fear of the consequences of what might happen - "that their happiness, the beauty of their city... even the abundance of their harvest and the mild climate of their skies depend entirely on the abominable misery of this child" - - that the citizens of Omelas use an excuse to refrain from doing anything to remedy the situation. Thoreau would instead turn this argument on its head and claim that their reluctance to change is not about some threat of disaster that will befall them if the child is freed; rather, it is that the prosperity and happiness they have has conditioned them to enjoy and be comfortable with the way their society functions: "the rich man... is always sold out to the institution that holds him makes you rich" (Thoreau, "Resistance” 77). He believes that there is a correlation between the wealth of a state and its morality: “absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; ” (Thoreau, “Resistance” 77). According to Thoreau, the inhabitants of Omelas are not good citizens because the evil of their civilization as a whole has imprinted itself on its individual members, eroding their fundamental human repulsion towards slavery. and mistreatment and installing in its place a love of material and social goods that makes them feel as if their happiness is worth more than the suffering of a child Despite the suppressive effect their way of life has had on their values, there are still some individuals in Omelas who, when exposed to the truth of what their world is based on, make the decision to walk away from their perfect little town: Sometimes one of the teenage boys or girls who go to visit the child he doesn't come home to cry or get angry, in fact, he doesn't come home at all. Sometimes even a much older man or woman will keep quiet for a day or two, then leave the house. These people go out into the street and walk down the street alone. They continue walking and exit directly from the city of Omelas, through the beautiful gates. They continue walking through the farmland of Omelas. Everyone goes alone, young man or girl, man or woman (Le Guin, 422). It is necessary for them to leave because they suffer from a kind of emotional pain resulting from their association with such an immoral situation, which Thoreau likens to a “kind of bloodshed” that occurs “when the conscience is wounded” and through which “ the true virility and immortality of a man springs forth, and he bleeds to eternal death” (Thoreau, “Resistance” 77). These are the few brave souls who, like Thoreau, “cannot recognize as my government that organization which is also the government of slaves” (Thoreau, “Resistance” 67). He would recognize those who leave Omelas for parts unknown as fellow resisters and admire their methods because they are similar to his own, as he sees the retreat as a form of resistance to a lifestyle he considers immoral: “it is his duty, at least, to wash your hands of it, and if he no longer thinks about it, to practically not give him his support” (Thoreau, “Resistance” 71). Those who leave Omelas do so because they simply cannot reconcile what they have seen with how they should live like everyone else has, and therefore want absolutely nothing more to do with that kind of state. They don't expect to change anything with their departure, and they probably haven't.