This is not an adult who understands sacrifices and can willingly accept and take on the responsibility of an entire populations happiness this is child, they do not know about commitment or the need of greater good, the child is living a miserable life against their will. However, this is a child who was once part of the exterior world “the child, has not always lived in the tool room.” A tragic hero, they have fallen from their status of normalcy to being slave to a societies need for happiness. It would be different perhaps, if the child wasn’t a child, or if the child had spent it’s whole life not knowing much else. The model for Omelas is inherently flawed. In this post I will be using the words they/them/their (singular) in effort to bring my point of the worth of the child’s humanity across. The child is dehumanized throughout the story by referred to as “it”. Omelas is an impractical utopia, everyone is deserving and worthy of a good life, humanity is not something to be decided upon. Utopia’s are imaginary, idealistic, and often times impractical worlds, the city of Omelas being a perfect example for this. Is the city of Omelas a true utopia? This is the overall question presented to us. It asks us about the whole over the part and whether this is a good model for society. It asks us to question something that may work well in theory but perhaps not as well in real life. In Ursula Le Guin’s, The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas, we see a paradoxical dichotomy presented that questions our morals.