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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment