For lastvoyages: Second Casefile [Written]
[Private]
Case Study Two: Richard, "Ritchie", Inmate to Will Graham, last name unknown.
Ritchie presents as a quietly nervous young man with the distinct goatish odor of schizophrenia to him. Outwardly neat, presentable and soft-spoken, he carries around a tremendous amount of tension and I suspect has a violent temper. From his dependency and immaturity I suspect that he never had the opportunity to grow in a healthy manner before he was struck down by his illness. He does not appear to have received treatment, or even a clear diagnosis from a professional, and may well be in complete denial about his illness. Will and I discussed him, and his Warden agrees that acknowledging what the young man has suffered, alone or near to it and certainly without proper help, will be key to gaining his trust and cooperation. Despite his illness and certain...unpleasant proclivities toward women, he strikes me as quite intelligent and with a great deal of untapped potential.
Note to self: talk to him one on one.
[Public]
Every culture and society has its own moral standards. I speak not of the laws of a society, but rather its unwritten cultural rules and mores--that which is assumed to be so obviously right and wrong that it need not even be codified.
As an example, consider the four Japanese Pillars of Moral Character. [His pronunciation of each term is perfect.] On is the principle of repaying one's debts, both literal and debts of honor. Gimu is the principle of owing allegiance to the holder of any debts you cannot repay, such as when one owes one's life to another. Giri refers to the execution of one's obligations, both of occupation and of private life, to the best of one's ability. Finally, Ninjo, the compassionate acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of all people and in a larger sense, all living things. The value of these principles were impressed upon me in my youth, and I have come to be reminded of them of late.
Yet no moral code means much of anything unless it is internalized and brought into action by individual people. In internalizing cultural mores, of course, the mores themselves tend to change. People will relate to one part of a code and yet find others irrelevant to their lives; others will attempt the whole exercise, subsuming any personal moral thought in favor of what their society deems to be right. And even then, the ways in which each person acts upon commonly accepted morals changes with their characters. A soldier sees nothing contradictory in fighting for peace, for example, though he by all rights values it more by knowing its opposite so intimately. Yet many civilians would see this as a contradiction. They forget the need for rough men standing ready in the night because violence is so foreign to their day to day experience. Who is right? Is there not room in society for both points of view?
Is morality rigidly unshakeable at its heart, or is it fluid and subject to cultural, situational and personal relativity? I would argue the latter...but only to a point. Like a willow tree, morality bends with the wind, but it has certain immovable roots. Can they be identified and agreed upon? And if so, what are they?
Where is your baseline for morality? What do you believe are the moral arguments that all can agree upon, or which are most practical?
Case Study Two: Richard, "Ritchie", Inmate to Will Graham, last name unknown.
Ritchie presents as a quietly nervous young man with the distinct goatish odor of schizophrenia to him. Outwardly neat, presentable and soft-spoken, he carries around a tremendous amount of tension and I suspect has a violent temper. From his dependency and immaturity I suspect that he never had the opportunity to grow in a healthy manner before he was struck down by his illness. He does not appear to have received treatment, or even a clear diagnosis from a professional, and may well be in complete denial about his illness. Will and I discussed him, and his Warden agrees that acknowledging what the young man has suffered, alone or near to it and certainly without proper help, will be key to gaining his trust and cooperation. Despite his illness and certain...unpleasant proclivities toward women, he strikes me as quite intelligent and with a great deal of untapped potential.
Note to self: talk to him one on one.
[Public]
Every culture and society has its own moral standards. I speak not of the laws of a society, but rather its unwritten cultural rules and mores--that which is assumed to be so obviously right and wrong that it need not even be codified.
As an example, consider the four Japanese Pillars of Moral Character. [His pronunciation of each term is perfect.] On is the principle of repaying one's debts, both literal and debts of honor. Gimu is the principle of owing allegiance to the holder of any debts you cannot repay, such as when one owes one's life to another. Giri refers to the execution of one's obligations, both of occupation and of private life, to the best of one's ability. Finally, Ninjo, the compassionate acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of all people and in a larger sense, all living things. The value of these principles were impressed upon me in my youth, and I have come to be reminded of them of late.
Yet no moral code means much of anything unless it is internalized and brought into action by individual people. In internalizing cultural mores, of course, the mores themselves tend to change. People will relate to one part of a code and yet find others irrelevant to their lives; others will attempt the whole exercise, subsuming any personal moral thought in favor of what their society deems to be right. And even then, the ways in which each person acts upon commonly accepted morals changes with their characters. A soldier sees nothing contradictory in fighting for peace, for example, though he by all rights values it more by knowing its opposite so intimately. Yet many civilians would see this as a contradiction. They forget the need for rough men standing ready in the night because violence is so foreign to their day to day experience. Who is right? Is there not room in society for both points of view?
Is morality rigidly unshakeable at its heart, or is it fluid and subject to cultural, situational and personal relativity? I would argue the latter...but only to a point. Like a willow tree, morality bends with the wind, but it has certain immovable roots. Can they be identified and agreed upon? And if so, what are they?
Where is your baseline for morality? What do you believe are the moral arguments that all can agree upon, or which are most practical?