Tue Nov 23, 2004
Okay, I promised to tell you guys what I said that got the whole class in an uproar when the Moral Dilema was presented by Dr. H. And Dr. H was emphatic- you didn't have to like these people, you could see them all as fallen, or weak, or whatever, but there was no moral relativism allowed. You had to pick a hero and a villian.
I picked Slugo as the hero, even though I liked his actions least of all. As anti-violence as I am, I saw him as the only person who acted altruistically - the only person who put himself out for the sake of someone else ( because, presumabley, Charlie got a few licks in) What NOBODY agreed with me on...
was the Uncle is the clear villian. This was a guy who had the means at his disposal to prevent all of the suffering that happened - not the OBLIGATION to do so, but the OPPORTUNITY. Furthermore, this opportunity to help someone else required not effort on his part, since the story stipulated that he was wealthy.
There wasn't another person in the class who could see how a sin of ommission could even be as bad, let alone worse, than the actions of the other players.
But, bonus points to Theresa, for bringing up a point no one in my class mentioned: How cute was the Ferryman?
Posted by Ginga Cool Cat at 11:49 PM
|
Comment on this entry
I can see it now. The uncle wasn't even a major player so I missed him completely in my analysis and overlooked the fact that he was able to avert the entire disaster with a little generosity. If that one person had showed mercy and grace, none of the other bad events would have happened...so yes, if you look at it this way, he IS the villain. I like the way your mind works, Ginga Cool Cat.
Posted by: Becky at November 24, 2004 5:57 AM
Thanks for your take on the moral dilemma. Here are a few more thoughts of mine:
This is one definition for villain:
1.A wicked or evil person; a scoundrel.
The ferryman seems to fit this definition best, especially the scoundrel part. Charlie-is he truly wicked or evil for responding as he did to Suzie? Is he not entitled to his belief system without our judging him evil for not abandoning it simply because abandoning it would be more convenient? He could be the one most true to his values, even though it results in great emotional pain for Suzie and the presumed loss of a great relationship for him. Suzie abandoned her principles when they became inconvenient, yet our natural inclination is to sympathize with her as a victim. Is Slugo? Is it evil or wicked to commit violence, even for "a good cause?" When have people not justified their violence saying it was justified? In Ron Artest's mind, he was justified in going into the stands in retaliation for the cup thrown at him. His teammates felt that they were justified in going in after him to "defend" him as he pummeled people in the crowd. Would we call them heroes along with Slugo? As for the uncle, can an act of omission be wicked or evil? Perhaps he had honorable motives. The story doesn't give use enough info-did he disapprove of Charlie, perhaps sensing the type of man Charlie turned out to be? Did he perhaps feel Suzie would be safer in making the journey once the flood waters receded? While this is an interesting dilemma to discuss, we do not have enough information to fully assign blame and merit, and even if we did have more info, who are we to judge?
Here's a second definition for villain:
2. A dramatic or fictional character who is typically at odds with the hero.
This one is easier. Everyone except Slugo is at odds with Suzie. If Suzie is the hero, then everyone but Slugo is the villain. If Slugo is the hero, the only character at odds with him is Charlie, although Charlie has no personal beef with him since Slugo is acting on Suzie's behalf.
I respect everyone's responses to the question and found this debate very interesting.I hope I don't come off sounding like I know all the answers- this is just my ongoing take on the question.
Posted by: Rick at November 25, 2004 12:12 AM
The uncle's refusal to be charitable did not directly cause bad events to occur. He could not have forseen the exact outcome of his action or inaction. Anyway, you never know. This scenario could be something that happens all of the time. Floods might be a regular thing in that area. The uncle could have been tired of giving Suzie the money for the inflated cost of a ferry ride. Susie could have been a theatrical obsessive-compulsive person who just HAD to see Charlie every day no matter what. Charlie might have been glad to get a break from her! For all we know, the ferryman could have been joking, and was completely surprized that he got a treat (or a trick). Maybe Suzie was a "ho" and people expected her to pay in "tricks". (Did this happen on October 31st?) Maybe Susie should have found a boyfriend on her own side of the river, unless it was West Virginia, in which case, maybe not! Charlie certainly didn't seem worth all of that trouble, but maybe Susie was no prize either. How many teeth did she have? Maybe the ferryman just had the hots really bad for Susie, but wasn't great at romance.
In any case, that was a really thought provoking story. Thanks!!
Posted by: Theresa at November 25, 2004 1:06 PM
Would opinions of these people have been different if their names were changed? What if "Susie" had been named "Bertha" or "Olga"? What if the Ferryman had had a name at all? What if he had been "Ashley", "Buddy" or "Einstien"? What if "Slugo" had been named "Sir Edward Harrington III"?
What if if I used less "quotes"?
Food for thought.....
:)
Posted by: Theresa at November 25, 2004 1:13 PM
I can see it now. The uncle wasn't even a major player so I missed him completely in my analysis and overlooked the fact that he was able to avert the entire disaster with a little generosity. If that one person had showed mercy and grace, none of the other bad events would have happened...so yes, if you look at it this way, he IS the villain. I like the way your mind works, Ginga Cool Cat.
Posted by: Becky at November 24, 2004 5:57 AMThanks for your take on the moral dilemma. Here are a few more thoughts of mine:
This is one definition for villain:
1.A wicked or evil person; a scoundrel.
The ferryman seems to fit this definition best, especially the scoundrel part. Charlie-is he truly wicked or evil for responding as he did to Suzie? Is he not entitled to his belief system without our judging him evil for not abandoning it simply because abandoning it would be more convenient? He could be the one most true to his values, even though it results in great emotional pain for Suzie and the presumed loss of a great relationship for him. Suzie abandoned her principles when they became inconvenient, yet our natural inclination is to sympathize with her as a victim. Is Slugo? Is it evil or wicked to commit violence, even for "a good cause?" When have people not justified their violence saying it was justified? In Ron Artest's mind, he was justified in going into the stands in retaliation for the cup thrown at him. His teammates felt that they were justified in going in after him to "defend" him as he pummeled people in the crowd. Would we call them heroes along with Slugo? As for the uncle, can an act of omission be wicked or evil? Perhaps he had honorable motives. The story doesn't give use enough info-did he disapprove of Charlie, perhaps sensing the type of man Charlie turned out to be? Did he perhaps feel Suzie would be safer in making the journey once the flood waters receded? While this is an interesting dilemma to discuss, we do not have enough information to fully assign blame and merit, and even if we did have more info, who are we to judge?
Here's a second definition for villain:
2. A dramatic or fictional character who is typically at odds with the hero.
This one is easier. Everyone except Slugo is at odds with Suzie. If Suzie is the hero, then everyone but Slugo is the villain. If Slugo is the hero, the only character at odds with him is Charlie, although Charlie has no personal beef with him since Slugo is acting on Suzie's behalf.
I respect everyone's responses to the question and found this debate very interesting.I hope I don't come off sounding like I know all the answers- this is just my ongoing take on the question.
Posted by: Rick at November 25, 2004 12:12 AMThe uncle's refusal to be charitable did not directly cause bad events to occur. He could not have forseen the exact outcome of his action or inaction. Anyway, you never know. This scenario could be something that happens all of the time. Floods might be a regular thing in that area. The uncle could have been tired of giving Suzie the money for the inflated cost of a ferry ride. Susie could have been a theatrical obsessive-compulsive person who just HAD to see Charlie every day no matter what. Charlie might have been glad to get a break from her! For all we know, the ferryman could have been joking, and was completely surprized that he got a treat (or a trick). Maybe Suzie was a "ho" and people expected her to pay in "tricks". (Did this happen on October 31st?) Maybe Susie should have found a boyfriend on her own side of the river, unless it was West Virginia, in which case, maybe not! Charlie certainly didn't seem worth all of that trouble, but maybe Susie was no prize either. How many teeth did she have? Maybe the ferryman just had the hots really bad for Susie, but wasn't great at romance.
Posted by: Theresa at November 25, 2004 1:06 PMIn any case, that was a really thought provoking story. Thanks!!
Would opinions of these people have been different if their names were changed? What if "Susie" had been named "Bertha" or "Olga"? What if the Ferryman had had a name at all? What if he had been "Ashley", "Buddy" or "Einstien"? What if "Slugo" had been named "Sir Edward Harrington III"?
Posted by: Theresa at November 25, 2004 1:13 PMWhat if if I used less "quotes"?
Food for thought.....
:)