• Utilitarian perspective: the consequence of the child's suffering is not worth the utopian
society, so people (anyone) leave the city.
• Could not have utopian perspective w/o dystupian perspective
• The appearance of utopian society may be in truth, a dystopia
• Trade off from utopian society is the suffering of one child forever (feeble minded,
• Morality: there is something more valuable than just happiness and utopia and
satisfaction, which is why they left Omelas. Rejecting the 'perfect' society for something
“I cannot describe”
• What is that 'indescribable thing'? They reject the suffering of the child for a utopian
society (they pursue a more moral life?)
• There is a bargain that the suffering of one child is for the good of the society, but it
does not DEPEND on its suffering.
• People who walk away are striving a better ideal or principle – character development.
• Free will: choosing to reject or accept a moral, self-determination, morals are flexible
• Justifying the norms of behaviour b/c of descriptive statements.
• Appointing to how the world is and connecting how it ought to be is naturalistic fallacy –
CANNOT change 'is' statements to 'ought' statements
• How do we get to a normative conclusion?
◦ Cannot derive from “ought” statement to an “is” statement without referring to
something that is normative for us. Therefore, we should state our desires first (the
normative statement) (E.g. Ice example)
• Justify our experience and arguments b/c “that is how it always been” or tries to make
it the norm
• Normative premises should come from desires from yourself
◦ E.g. Not lying b/c you want to appear honest, or you think it is immoral etc. ]
Challenges to Morality: All ought statements make references to our desires.
Psychological Egoism: people only act selfishly – only motivated by my