Table of ContentsPurpose DescriptionConclusionReferencesMorality and happiness are among the many questions that have troubled philosophers and moral scholars over the years. Most communities around the world value morality and often relate it to happiness, explaining why the themes of morality and happiness are a major concern for many, not only for philosophy but also for society in general. But why should the individual or society be moral? This question and its similar variations lead us to consider happiness and morality in many ways, from individual and societal, ego, and other perspectives. It is the interest of this analysis to look at how the two intertwine and articulate in the world of reality. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Objective Description For an overview, happiness can be defined as what an individual acquires after successfully achieving his or her personal values. As Hirsch says, it is a state of consciousness that has its roots in morality. Ursula LeGuin's story presents a paradoxical dichotomy that challenges the reader's moral position. The narrative tells of the mythical and exotic imaginary city of Omelas, a bright city dominated by the sea. Unlike other towns or cities, we currently live in or know that the people of Omelas are happy individuals. Author Ursula LeGuin describes this city as pure elegance, with magnificent public buildings, ideal governance, a city with zero tolerance for slavery and any form of injustice resulting from the monarchical system of governance ( LeGuin). The author describes a beautiful city where lucky townspeople live a joyful life, they enjoy what is for many a utopian life with lots of comforts that include no limits to drugs, sexual encounters and good music. The city has an ideal climate that favors city dwellers, there are no exploitative advertisements, no secret police suggesting that the city's citizens follow the law and live a free life, without any form of surveillance. Generally, Omelas is the ideal city that anyone could want to live in. As the story progresses, we discover the flaws of the city and its people. The author notes that despite the fact that the townspeople live in an exotic life, a life that is far-fetched compared to the real world of events. The joyful and happy life in the city of Omelas depended on the miseries and degradation of a child. Poor and locked in a dark cellar, this child is subjected to the most inhumane conditions, just for the millions of people living in the city. How moral is it that the happiness of the entire town depends on the mistreatment of a single individual? To make things even more complicated, it's just a child. The author notes that from an early age the child spent his entire life in such devastating conditions. We are not told why fate made the child suffer for the behavior of the entire town, but given his age it is clear that the child is not out of will, he chose to suffer for the sake of city ​​but by subjection of the city dwellers. Ursula LeGuin notes that the children used to cry out for help at night, saying "I'll be good," but at the moment the children only whine and speak less, if at all. Coming back to our question, are the actions of city dwellers justifiable? Do you think it is acceptable to sacrificeone part for the benefit of many more? From the author's description of Omelas, it is a perfect example of what is ideal but not real and achievable. My view is that subjecting an individual to inhumane conditions for the benefit of the many is not justifiable by any moral standard. If the happiness of a people must be defined by the sorrows and sufferings of others, it is good to let happiness go all together. Human life is sacred and not something other humans should decide. Thus, every human being has the right to a better life. Furthermore, the author suggests that the fundamental condition of a good city life depends on the child's unrelenting suffering. This essentially suggests that suffering and happiness are two sides of the same coin, one cannot exist without the other. So this implies that even if the child is left free, there will be people in the city who will suffer and in addition, we will also have those who will live in happiness. Additionally, reality dictates that there will always be points of suffering and happiness at some point in life. It's not always an easy line, even for those who are supposed to lead happy lives. The story also suggests that in order to maintain a delicate balance aimed at preserving the joy of city living, the urban dweller had to adopt some sort of system of discrimination. LeGuin notes that in the city, “happiness rests on a fair discrimination between what is necessary, what is neither necessary nor destructive, and what is destructive.” This implies that life and happiness in the city have never depended solely on the alienation and imprisonment of the young child. How does the moral/ethical dilemma of “Omelas” apply to real life? It should be noted that the story of He Who Walks Away from Omelas is purely a mythical dilemma. On the one hand, we have the happiness and prosperity linked to an imprisoned and malnourished child, and on the other, we have the guilt which gnaws at some Omelians because of the suffering of a child to the detriment of their happiness and of their joyful life. Although it is a mythical tale, it has its implications in the real world in which we live. Slavery is a perfect example. When talking about slavery, many people often view it as an outdated concept, one of the images that describe the evil deeds of the 18th and 20th century slave trade. What these people fail to notice is that even in our contemporary world, slavery exists, but in different forms. In slavery, people are subjected by their master to harsh conditions, unpaid labor, and many other inhumane conditions that only work for the masters. Those who profit from the labor of slaves are the masters. So, one way or another, the slaves suffer at the expense of the masters. Slavery never ended when it was abolished in the 19th century. It has changed form and still manifests itself in many ways. He further gives examples of slavery that benefits the masters like forced prostitution (especially women), forced labor and children working in sweatshops and many more. It further defines slavery as any form of life in which individuals are controlled by their exploiters. Any form of human exploitation that benefits others should never be tolerated. This is so regardless of whether it defines the happiness or well-being of the majority of people. For the example of modern slavery, those trapped may have no choice but to be exploited. Best should be done through legislation to ensure that citizens are not exploited by a few. Regarding our history of analysis, we observe that in the world of)