After reading “Those Who Walk Away from Omelas” by Ursula K. Le Guin, one question that caught my attention was -ci: What does history tell us about our happiness as a society? In order to answer this question, we must first understand what constitutes the society we live in today. This story is about the life of Omelas, the happiest and most beautiful city in the world, but the reason why this city makes people happy is by imprisoning an innocent child. So in the last part of the story, people choose to leave the city. In a distant land, there is a place like Tao Yuanming's Peach Garden; we call him Omelas. There are beautiful mountains and fresh air. There is no government, no army, no war, no crime. No judges and no police. Exactly like the utopian world of our text. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay However, the town has an open secret: there is a basement beneath the castle, in the center of the town. The door to the room was locked and there were no windows. There was a child in it and no one knew the child. However, no one did anything for him. Because the child's suffering made the city happy, people knew that once he was freed, fed, and warmed, the splendor of the city would go up in smoke. Many adults know the child but do not look at him, instead using him as creative motivation or a wake-up call. Many of the city's children went to see him in the basement. They were very excited and angry. However, if they showed sympathy for the child, the city would be destroyed. Many children grow up and behave like other adults. However, a group of people went to the child, saw the horror and left. Instead of going home to Omelas, they went somewhere we couldn't imagine. No one knew where it was, not even them. They have just passed through the magnificent Omelas City Gate and are beginning to leave Omelas. The story has been treated as a classic critical examination of the philosophical thought experiment of utilitarianism. If you support imprisoning this child, then you are a utilitarian. This interpretation, like many other stories, is oversimplified and embedded in realistic philosophical thought. It is absurd to apply a philosophical theory from a virtual history to reality. This story can be told without explanation. This can never be right. Of course, the elements of this story can be said to symbolize real society. However, this is more of a literary association than a dark analogy. For example, some people understand that the children in this story represent sweatshops in third world countries and the citizens represent developed countries. The two analogies are similar, but they don't apply at all. Because of the opposition to imprisoning children, the analogy runs counter to sweatshops. It's not rigorous, especially now that we know that there are still many people who want to bring these factories home. There are other stories like you can kill one person and save nineteen others. There is no difference between constructing a theory from these fictional stories and thinking that killing someone in a game was murder. In addition to these overinterpreted fictions, there are also good philosophical allegories like Plato's cave, John Locke's primitive society, etc. . There are two essential differences between these fablesappropriate and the fictional stories that precede them. The first is that these relevant allegories are all so abstract that they can be accepted as real, like mathematics. These virtual stories do their best to make them concrete to seem real, but make them increasingly fake and peculiar. However detailed these stories are, however precise their characteristics, it is impossible to think seriously about them. “It will never happen to me anyway,” they say.think. Instead, no one asks, “What’s the problem?” I will never be in this cave. Another is the allegory appropriate for the figurative exposition of the theory that philosophers have constructed from reality. Just as Plato's cave was based on a more realistic ideal world, John Locke's primitive society was based on people born with these rights. If you disagree with the premises, then the allegory is invalid. However, such premises do not exist in these fictional stories, or they no longer make sense. These stories go in the opposite direction, creating a story and then building a theory based on that story. Additionally, judging people for and against the story. The best choice for philosophical thinking is not to use these legendary fables, but real cases and events. When people treat Omelas as a philosophical fable, they ignore its literary value. Le Guin uses a unique narrative to create this story. He is neither a spectator with subjective and objective colors, nor a character in the story, but the creator of the city explains and presents the city directly to readers, just like selling a product. He would therefore directly defend the authenticity of the city, as in the story he tells, Does Omelas have a metro? If it makes the citizens happy, of course. The best quote from this story would be this: “The problem is we have a bad habit. Encouraged by the peat and sophisticates to view happiness as something quite stupid, only pain is intellectually, only evil is interesting, etc. “Now this is a perfect irony for many literary works; a bad character is the brilliant one, the good character is the false naive one. Le Guin already knew that readers would use this tone to question the truth of the story, which is why he answered these questions directly in the story. Sometimes the answer can come before the question. Another exciting aspect of this story is that the citizens of Omelas are aware of the existence of this imprisoned child and his relationship with himself. As Le Guin explains, these are not people who have been brainwashed into naivety, but people who know these things with wisdom. Additionally, they still feel sorry for the child, which seems to contradict the story. Aren't the people of Omelas supposed to be happy? Why are you so sad now? However, if they were happy with the imprisoned child, they would hardly be described as kind and happy, but rather a band of bandits who shared the spoils. This is very similar to the fact that people in heaven will be sad to see hell, but that means they are happy in heaven. This kind of sympathy and sadness towards the child is probably an essential part of the well-being of these citizens. Because they realize that their happiness has a price, and it is not in vain that it is the child's pain. Therefore, they will cherish the happiness they have now, instead of being greedy and indulgent. The same goes for many things in life. When people know the difficulties behind many achievements, they2)