Relating Even More Literary Works To Moral Ambiguity

My last indipendent study was a Norweigen book by Per Peterson titled Out Stealing Horses. This book was about an old man living alone in a small mountain town, flashing back to his youth, and analyzing the present. Along with his decision to move to this town, he chose to eliminate almost all contact with his family, choosing to instead ponder in quiet serenity. Most people would assume that ignoring your children would be un-dismissable. This case though, has reasons. The main character suffered an incredible amount emotionally with the death of greates friend and companion, his wife. This character seemed to deal with emotional situation the way that I would, I do not like confiding the feelings of my emotional pain. To me, his choice was correct. He planned to eventually open back relations with his family, but he needed time ito be solitary first. Going from emotional pain to discussing emotion pain often increases the amount of hurt that is shared. To me i think he is right emotionally, but at the same time; what if his children needed to confide in him? He wasn't there if they needed him. Sometimes we need to make choices between what would provide us the greater good, and what would provide others their greatest good.

Current Events/Pop Culture

Every action should be justified, so every action ever told in any song, any book, any magazine, movie, show, anything, was justified by someone. It is then our responsibility as the consumer of these things to decide for ouselves if the morals supported in our media are morals worth supporting. It is our responsibility to decide our own moral values, our standards of action and base our interpritations off of them. Teen adressed magazines are the best example of values that are highly questionable. When sex, drinking and social scenes surpass education, family values and personal respect, I believe there is a problem. It is an individual responsibility to every person on earth to decide what values are worth upholding. What we stand for is a representation of our character. What do we stand for when we spend hours pooring over the lives of the rich and famous? What do we stand for when we read more about their drinking and social interaction the we spend interracting? It is up to us to decide if these actions are correct, we need to understand that behind ever piece of writing, there is an author with their own moral compass. Often with values entirely different than our own.

How do our recent readings relate to the big question?

Every single book we've ever read in this school has been analyzed, and almost always the actions of the characters have been labelled as right or wrong. But just saying that something is right or wrong is never accurate, because the values of right and wrong differ incredibly between individuals. Here are three recent books we read that will expound thought on the issue:

Crime and Punishment: Most readers will completely agree that the murder of two seemingly innocent people is im-moral. The problem? Raskolnikov is rationally justified in his action, up until the point that he hides the money. If Raskolnikov had taken two lives, and shared the money to help the greater good, we would still hate the act. So then, we must decide the value of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To me, these things are priceless.

The Stranger: This book causes us to judge the choice to be societally indifferent. Indifference to this life breeds contempt, and eventually the need for emotion. We as readers judge the characters indifferent attitute toward his sunny world, but do we have a right to? Do we have any right to decide whether or not an individuals apathy is justified morally?

Metemorphesis: As readers, we find ourselves analyzing the actions of Gregor's family, and often readers are split between rational justification and emotional justification. To most, the sentiment of ignoring Gregor is a difficult one, and not justified. To a rational thinker though, Gregor is providing nothing for the family, and merely taking time and food. What then, makes his life valuable and worthwhile?

What makes our morals correct in analyzing literature? Do we have the right to judge characters?

This question is particulary important to me, becuase I struggle with the answer every day. Too often, humans judge there actions simply because it feels right or wrong. I think that there should be a balance of feeling that an action is right and knowing that an action is right. I began asking myself this question before I can remember, because I have consistantly be disposed to question the moral standards placed upon me by others as well as myself. To me, all morals should and can be realistically theorized and proved. In my life, I consistantly search every value I have to ensure that it is the value that makes the most sense. The justification for these values comes in varying complexity. Take drinking and drugs for example, I know that I would rather be satisfied with who I am than momentarily happy with a physical sensation. The effects of both substances are simply ones that make no rational sense: loss of vision, loss of self control, loss of awareness, loss of meaning in life, addiction, and lost of self respect. Other, more difficult justifications come in the form of much simpler things, the small things we do in life. And the most difficult questions are that of the function of societies in this world, which I believe are almost always morally off course. I do not hide this question, I believe all actions deserve a justification.