Jonathan Broadie
Mr. Hurley
Eng 131
26 Oct 2014
Sacrificing Happiness
As Ursula LeGuin emphasizes in “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, happiness is about perspective. This perspective differs between those who seek it, as do the lengths that people are willing to go to achieve their version of happiness. People often argue the moral boundary of sacrificing the well-being of few for the well-being of many. In LeGuin’s story a utopia exists. The people that inhabit it experience true happiness. Their happiness comes with a price that the inhabitants are informed of between eight and twelve years old. Locked in a cupboard is a child who has to suffer in order to maintain the town’s perfect atmosphere. This is an extreme example of people sacrificing the well-being of few, or even one, for the happiness of many. A more realistic example comes from Kate Chopin’s “The Storm”. Chopin’s story involves a wife, a seemingly loving husband, and a young son in the 1800s. A storm hits and while the wife is safe at home, the husband and son are at a store and must remain there until it passes. A former lover of the wife is nearby when the storm hits and must take shelter at her home. Then story turns very intimate as the wife and the man from her past experience sensual tension while waiting out the storm. When the skies calm, the man leaves and shortly after, the husband and son return home and life continues as if nothing ever occurred. The wife, Calixta, jeopardized the well-being of her family for a few moments of “happiness”. Although “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas”, by Ursula Le Guin and “The Storm”, by Kate Chopin, have contrasting stipulations such as; length of time, people involved, repercussions, plausibility, types of happiness, and public knowledge of the characters actions. They share a theme by stating that it is defensible for people to sacrifice the happiness of others for their own.
The people involved in these two stories offer very different scales of people sacrificing the happiness of others for their own. This is a good contrasting point because it offers two different perspectives on what people are willing to risk or sacrifice and the different methods that they come to their decisions to compromise the happiness of someone else for their own.It is thought that it is harder to allow people that one knows to be harmed than it is to allow a stranger to be harmed. This point is reversed in these two stories. Although Calixta is not directly harming her family, she is jeopardizing their feelings, social standing, and the ability for her son to grow up with a “normal” family. Even though only a few people are at risk, the importance of the story is kept by increasing the importance of the people. No references of her possible consequences are made through the story so the details are left to the mind of the reader. Considering the time frame Calixta was risking her entire life and those of her family for moments of personal pleasure. She makes her decision without a moment of doubt. The story makes these acts feel grave by only informing the reader of a handful of characters. This magnifies anything that the characters do, making small details in to major points of the story.
This contrasts LeGuin’s story, where the town is full of people. She describes a celebration of sorts, stating “With a clamor of bells that set the swallows soaring, the Festival of Summer came to the city Omelas, bright-towered by the sea” (LeGuin 257). LeGuin creates a city that is colorful and full of people, and then weighs it against the misery of one boy. It is clear that the entire town knows of the one boy. This differs by allowing many people to make the decision of sacrificing the boys’ well-being. This also removes the reader’s ability to say that one character is making a selfish decision. Although only one boy is at risk LeGuin is able to maintain the importance of the story by increasing the misery of the boy. She does this by not only placing him in a torturous position and informing the reader that he once knew happiness. LeGuin writes, but the child, who has not always lived in the tool room, and can remember sunlight and its mother's voice, sometimes speaks” (LeGuin 260). This statement removes the ability for one to believe that the boy has always been in the closet and is not miserable, because it is the only place he knows. If either of these authors changed the amount of people or the importance of these people the stories would be very different and the decisions that were made, as well as the outcome of each story would be very different. For example it could be assumed that Calixta would not have cheated on her husband, if she believed it would have forced her son to be locked in a cupboard. Inversely, Omelas would have had a much easier decision to make if they were only risking one marriage in order to keep their happiness. It is important that the plot maintains balanced when sacrificing the well-being of others so the story remains defensible.
The time frame of each story offers another key point in the characters actions. When stories take place in different decades or centuries it changes the expected and acceptable actions of characters involved. Time frame can also apply to the length of time that each of the characters benefitted from the situation. The Storm” takes place in the 1800s, written in 1898, this time placed strict moral conduct codes on the people. The 1800s also limited the freedoms of women. This doesn’t just include the ability to vote, but their ability to marry someone outside of their class or be promiscuous without repercussions. Calixta clearly had an intimate relationship with this man, Alcee, before she was married. Chopin writes “for in Assumption he had kissed her and kissed her; until his senses would well night fail, and to save her he would resort to a desperate flight” (Chopin 125). Alcee would leave Calixta before they would reach sex because women were not supposed to express themselves sexually. The other reference on time frame in the storm is the length of time that Calixta benefitted from her actions. It is suggested that her adultery only lasted through one storm, because the story ends with “So the storm passed and everyone was happy” (126). Calixta only cheated once and therefore only compromised the well-being of her family once. These facts are what make Calixta’s actions defensible. The small chance of Calixta getting caught was the same small chance of her actually harming her family
“The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas” takes place in, what is described, as a relatively modern place created in the readers mind. It is free of moral judgments that history may place on people. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas” the utopia does not have a time limit. The terms of the Omelas are that the town can maintain its happiness as long as the child suffers. Even though the child suffers for a long period of time more people benefit from it and that is what makes the towns actions more reasonable. The consequences, possible consequences, and lack of consequences of these stories are what make readers ponder upon them. The two writes use different consequences to suggest to the reader that making the decision that sacrifices the happiness of another person is the right one. Calixta does not have the burden of consequences hanging over her head. The opportunity to have sex with a former suitor allows her to let go of her inhibitions. Chopin forces the reader to consider the possibility of her adultery being acceptable as long as no one gets hurt or finds out. But, it can be assumed if she did have the opportunity to see the possible repercussions of her actions she would not have partaken in such taboo behavior. Calixta is never actually faced with any form of consequences, even at the stories end. Chopin closes with “So the storm passed and everyone was happy.” (127)This statement implies that no part of life was disrupted for Calixta. Without any repercussions or asking about the possibility of repercussions “The Storm” makes it easy to believe that Calixta made a harmless, primal, natural decision.
The townspeople in LeGuin’s story are forced to face known repercussions of their decision and have constant knowledge of what will occur should they break their contract. This is the reason that they make the decision to leave the child in the cupboard. The people do not enjoy seeing the child, they are upset by him, some people even leave the town because of him, but no one sets him free. The town is not even promised that they will be miserable should they release the child, they simply will not be guaranteed there happiness. No matter what decision a person in Omelas wants to make, they understand that it will affect thousands of people. That deters anyone who cannot bear to know of the child suffering because of their happiness from releasing him. The fact that thousands of people will have to live less happy lives in order for one boy to have a chance for happiness is also what makes the decision to keep him captive defensible.
Though both stories require, sometimes, opposite plots to make actions justifiable, they both suggest to the reader that it is acceptable to sacrifice and risk the happiness of others for your own. The writers are not displaying stories, which are inherently “bad” and they are not implying that people want to hurt others. Instead they are highlighting the natural “gray area” between good and bad. These authors believe that, in some circumstances, it is ok to sacrifice the happiness of someone else for your own.

Works Cited
Chopin, Kate. “The Storm.” Literature: A Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama and Writing. Ed. X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia. 12th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 123-127. Print.
LeGuin, Ursula. “Those Who Walk Away from the Omelas.” Literature: A Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama and Writing. Ed. X. J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia. 12th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 257-262. Print