In Waiting for the Barbarians, Coetzee's Magistrate recalls lecturing a young offender. I will paraphrase some, but quote it at some length because I think the language is beautiful:
"You think you know what is just and what is not. I understand. We all think we know...all creatures come into the world bringing with them the memory of justice. But we live in a world of laws...a world of the second-best...all we can do is uphold the laws, all of us, without allowing the memory of justice to fade."
He says "a world of laws," but he may as well have said "a world of flaws." I think Coetzee's invocation of this Platonic system is interesting. I am accustomed to thinking of the "intelligible world" in terms of hard, scientific absolutes: triangles and such. An ideal triangle I can wrap my head around. Ideal justice is harder to conceptualize.
If our world is a world of the second-best, how do laws get us any closer to the world of the best?
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Would Humans Prefer Zoos?
In Life of Pi, one of Yann Martel's characters brings up an interesting point about zoos. While the animals in zoos are not free, they are safe. Animals do not value self-determination or the natural sublime like humans; they are more concerned with freedom from predation, freedom from hunger, and freedom from the deleterious effects of the environment.
It is only when humans begin anthropomorphizing animals--projecting human values upon them--that the morality of zoos becomes fuzzy. Animals, Martel's character concludes, are better off zoos. Given a choice and the intelligence to understand it, animals would certainly choose the cage.
Are we the same? Would we sacrifice safety and comfort for a wilder life? What would we seek on this quixotic endeavor? Authenticity? What would authenticity mean in this context?
It is only when humans begin anthropomorphizing animals--projecting human values upon them--that the morality of zoos becomes fuzzy. Animals, Martel's character concludes, are better off zoos. Given a choice and the intelligence to understand it, animals would certainly choose the cage.
Are we the same? Would we sacrifice safety and comfort for a wilder life? What would we seek on this quixotic endeavor? Authenticity? What would authenticity mean in this context?
Family Guy and the Humanity of the Disabled
This topic is somewhat dated, but it attracted a fair amount of media attention. To review: in a recent episode of Family Guy, Chris goes on a date with Ellen, who has Down Syndrome. Chris has high hopes because he believes that individuals with Down Syndrome have exceptionally beautiful souls; he is crushed to discover that Ellen is cruel and domineering.
I am unconvinced that this episode is morally objectionable or that it creates net social harm. By portraying a disabled character with flaws that are a) unrelated to her disability and b) consistent with a stock character familiar to anyone who watches sitcoms, Family Guy asserts, not denies, the humanity of the disabled. The stakes are high: the extent to which disabled individuals count as fully human and the extent to which they deserve a place in society.
Individuals with Down Syndrome bear the burden of a stereotype: that they are kinder and more moral than the general population. I am uncertain of this belief's origins. It might be the idea that cognitive disability impairs deceit or aggression. It might be the idea that individuals with a disability in one area are compensated with exceptional ability in another. Not only are these ideas wrong, they leech at the individuality and humanity of their subjects.
Chris meets a girl with Down Syndrome and she is insufferable. One possible takeaway is that individuals with Down Syndrome are generally insufferable. But it strikes me that most characters on Family Guy are insufferable in one way or another. What would it mean to exclude characters with Down Syndrome from Family Guy's world, or to portray them as angels? What would be the underlying logic? Would either of these approaches do justice to the disabled community?
I am unconvinced that this episode is morally objectionable or that it creates net social harm. By portraying a disabled character with flaws that are a) unrelated to her disability and b) consistent with a stock character familiar to anyone who watches sitcoms, Family Guy asserts, not denies, the humanity of the disabled. The stakes are high: the extent to which disabled individuals count as fully human and the extent to which they deserve a place in society.
Individuals with Down Syndrome bear the burden of a stereotype: that they are kinder and more moral than the general population. I am uncertain of this belief's origins. It might be the idea that cognitive disability impairs deceit or aggression. It might be the idea that individuals with a disability in one area are compensated with exceptional ability in another. Not only are these ideas wrong, they leech at the individuality and humanity of their subjects.
Chris meets a girl with Down Syndrome and she is insufferable. One possible takeaway is that individuals with Down Syndrome are generally insufferable. But it strikes me that most characters on Family Guy are insufferable in one way or another. What would it mean to exclude characters with Down Syndrome from Family Guy's world, or to portray them as angels? What would be the underlying logic? Would either of these approaches do justice to the disabled community?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Tabula Rasa
New projects should begin in the springtime, preferably near opening day. The beginning of baseball season is a familiar figure for hope. In this spirit, I will very briefly outline my hopes for this blog.
I have never been able to maintain a chronicle of my quotidian life. This project, in contrast, will be about my ideas, which are most likely to be in the realm of current events, theory, and literature. While I intend it as a resource primarily for myself--a repository of my own ideas-- I am writing a blog rather than a Word document in the hopes of attracting interlocutors.
I have never been able to maintain a chronicle of my quotidian life. This project, in contrast, will be about my ideas, which are most likely to be in the realm of current events, theory, and literature. While I intend it as a resource primarily for myself--a repository of my own ideas-- I am writing a blog rather than a Word document in the hopes of attracting interlocutors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
