Reading competition: Book 1
The Once and Future King by T.H. White
What a remarkable book. I found myself underlining, making notes and reading quotes out loud from almost the moment it began. Everything from treating dogs like people, to boundaries being the cause of wars, to what makes a person real.
I know that the book is mostly about justice, about Right versus Might, and if Might can ever be used to create Right, and about what one does when justice on the whole contradicts personal morals and feelings.
Yet, I found that what struck me most were the ruminations on people, why they do what they do. Arthur and Lancelot as extreme foils of each other, both bound by moral codes and haunted by self-hatred, with Guenever in the middle, a "real" person, making decisions that best suit herself.
Actually, I did not at all like the character of Lancelot, his battle between his personal desire and self-imposed duty to God really grated at me. Mostly, of course, because I see parts of him in myself. I, too, have feared from a young age that I am fundamentally a bad person and thereby must do something grand to make up for what I lack, for the harm I do to the world. I think the reason that I was angry at Lancelot while reading instead of empathizing is because I have mostly come to terms with myself, in the sense that we all do "good" and "bad" things, but all a single person can do is what is "right" for oneself at that specific time: the difference between a "real" person and an "unreal" person. Lancelot and Arthur lived their lives for the world, not for themselves.
These thoughts on whether a person can really be expected to be totally "good" do lend the mind in the direction of questioning justice. My current thoughts on justice: while laws are necessary and a good thing, and should be followed, one must first and foremost be guided by one's own sense of morals--the laws are there to keep harm from being done to others. If there is a situation in which you must break the law to follow what is right for you--and it really is right for you morally, not just good for self-interest, greed or station--then you should have the courage to break the law. This is so in the example of a soldier disobeying a command he finds to be immoral or for a cause with which he does not agree; and in something like in certain states a woman choosing to have an abortion or anyone engaging in homosexual acts or couples having sex before marriage. Note, no one of these things adversely affects any other person. While it may offend others, it does not actually hurt them. So the just thing to do is follow one's morals. But in a situation where a person wishes to break the law by doing something like stealing, murdering, etc. then, yes, the law is just.
Captain Picard says it best: "There can be no justice when laws are absolute".
The thing is that "right" and "wrong" are subjective. And justice does not need to entail equal and opposite consequences (as in an eye for an eye). Arthur, in the book, ponders on his deathbed if things would not be more just by forgetting about the things done against us. I think he's right. Yes, a law-breaker who is found guilty must take responsibility for that action and deal with the punishment, but we need not attempt to find retribution by committing a similar "wrong" act. This just creates a vicious circle. The law is there to try and punish, it is not just--in my own opinion, mind you--for an individual to attempt to "get even".
What a remarkable book. I found myself underlining, making notes and reading quotes out loud from almost the moment it began. Everything from treating dogs like people, to boundaries being the cause of wars, to what makes a person real.
I know that the book is mostly about justice, about Right versus Might, and if Might can ever be used to create Right, and about what one does when justice on the whole contradicts personal morals and feelings.
Yet, I found that what struck me most were the ruminations on people, why they do what they do. Arthur and Lancelot as extreme foils of each other, both bound by moral codes and haunted by self-hatred, with Guenever in the middle, a "real" person, making decisions that best suit herself.
Actually, I did not at all like the character of Lancelot, his battle between his personal desire and self-imposed duty to God really grated at me. Mostly, of course, because I see parts of him in myself. I, too, have feared from a young age that I am fundamentally a bad person and thereby must do something grand to make up for what I lack, for the harm I do to the world. I think the reason that I was angry at Lancelot while reading instead of empathizing is because I have mostly come to terms with myself, in the sense that we all do "good" and "bad" things, but all a single person can do is what is "right" for oneself at that specific time: the difference between a "real" person and an "unreal" person. Lancelot and Arthur lived their lives for the world, not for themselves.
These thoughts on whether a person can really be expected to be totally "good" do lend the mind in the direction of questioning justice. My current thoughts on justice: while laws are necessary and a good thing, and should be followed, one must first and foremost be guided by one's own sense of morals--the laws are there to keep harm from being done to others. If there is a situation in which you must break the law to follow what is right for you--and it really is right for you morally, not just good for self-interest, greed or station--then you should have the courage to break the law. This is so in the example of a soldier disobeying a command he finds to be immoral or for a cause with which he does not agree; and in something like in certain states a woman choosing to have an abortion or anyone engaging in homosexual acts or couples having sex before marriage. Note, no one of these things adversely affects any other person. While it may offend others, it does not actually hurt them. So the just thing to do is follow one's morals. But in a situation where a person wishes to break the law by doing something like stealing, murdering, etc. then, yes, the law is just.
Captain Picard says it best: "There can be no justice when laws are absolute".
The thing is that "right" and "wrong" are subjective. And justice does not need to entail equal and opposite consequences (as in an eye for an eye). Arthur, in the book, ponders on his deathbed if things would not be more just by forgetting about the things done against us. I think he's right. Yes, a law-breaker who is found guilty must take responsibility for that action and deal with the punishment, but we need not attempt to find retribution by committing a similar "wrong" act. This just creates a vicious circle. The law is there to try and punish, it is not just--in my own opinion, mind you--for an individual to attempt to "get even".