The Ones who walk away from Omelas

I found this story troublesome as many of you also did.  When confronted with the question of what to do in this situation, how is it best to weigh one's options?  Calculate them with Bentham's methods or talk about quality with Mill?  Would I want to do a "greater good" by keeping the child locked up, thus keeping the whole town of people as they are, happy in their utopia?  Or shall I give the child a (hopefully) better quality of life if it were to be freed at the cost of the whole city's suffering?  Can one not teach the child in secret so that it learns the ways of the world and comfort again, in a neutral way such that kindness is not shown but that the child can come to understand this kindness somehow?  Is it better to sacrifice one for the many?  How do you plead?  What will sit better with one's conscience, the dissatisfaction and unhappiness of one to save many or the satisfaction of that one at the cost of the dissatisfaction of many?  Is there a way to have both parties satisfied?  If you walk away from the city of Omelas, you have made the choice that you are per say, washing your hand of it as you cannot do anything for the child, but you are still faced with the fact that the child is still there suffering and its suffering has not changed.  Is it better to walk away and plan to come back later to lead a revolution against such things?  If you think of this in terms of good and bad, can bad exist without good or good exist without bad?  Are these parts of the story so dependent on one another that you cannot have one without the other?  When it was said that the utopia would no longer be a utopia if the child was shown kindness, how bad could this be?  Could it be possible to "learn from your mistakes"?  Lets say for instance, that many people cannot hold their heads upright and their inner voice cannot keep quiet; their conscience gets the best of them and they wish to help the poor child.  If the child is helped then all, including the child will now live no longer in a utopia, but a place not so great as it once was.  Can it then be a time to rebuild and rethink, anew, with flourishing to begin again, and all consciences clean with the feeling of doing a sort of right and of what is just?  If what is just is the most good, should it not be pursued at all costs even after counting the consequences?  Does not justice prevail over immorality?