To walk away or not to walk away, that is the question. Those who walk away from Omelas obviously disagree on moral values (on some level) with those who stay in Omelas. Those who walk away disagree with the price the town pays for happiness. They do not want to destroy the town’s utopia but at the same time they do not want to be a part of that system. Those who walk away from Omelas are not Ethical Relativists because they disagree with the town’s (that culture’s) moral philosophy.
Ethical Relativists believe that each culture’s morality is moral within itself; each culture has its own moral codes that are true within that culture. If a number of people have create a society with moral codes that uphold the society and thus enable the society to exist and function, there fore the moral codes of that society are indeed moral within that culture or culture.
An ethical relativist would not walk away from Omelas, because he or she would believe that the citizens of Olemas are being perfectly moral when inflicting horrible pain and suffering upon the child to uphold the town’s utopia, because they follow their moral code, which was established within their culture. Furthermore, even if the ethical relativist is not from Omelas, he or she would walk away from the town in case if his/hers culture’s morality disagreed with the morality of Omelas.
Thus, those who walk away from Omelas could be ethical relativist if they are not from Omelas. However, the ones who walk away from Omelas are from that town then they are marked as non-ethical relativists because they disagree with their own culture and do not respect its moral codes. In conclusion, the ones who walk away from Omelas are not ethical relativists because they disagree with the town’s morality. A true ethical relativist wouls stay in Omelas because he or she would truly agree and uphold Omelas’ moral codes.