Are the Omelas still human despite what goes on in the story?

Ursula LeGuin's short story "The Ones Who Walk Away from
Omelas" is an allegory that takes William James's theory of pragmatism to great lengths
in order to put it into question. As such, then, the residents of Omelas are,
perhaps, inhumane in their acceptance of the miserable child as necessary for the
greater good.  Certainly, to be truly humane, the residents cannot accept happiness at
the cost of another's torture and misery.

While LeGuin's
story is morally ambiguous at best as the ones who stay
have

readability="7">

their tears at the bitter injustice dry when they
begin to perceive the terrible justice of reality, and to accept
it

while the ones who do walk
away from Omelas yet leave the miserable scapegoat in its pitiable state, there lies the
writer's truth that a moral choice should be made regarding a person's life regardless
of the consequences or the "greater good."  Unless this choice is made, none of the
residents of Omelas are truly human.  LeGuin's intrusive narrator invites the reader to
participate in this moral responsibility as she sends this message:  Is the welfare of
many worth the unjust misery of the individual.