Response to "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee

When you act against the vices of the dominant social order, you are only exhibiting virtue if you know that the dominant social order is inflicting something that is morally wrong. Otherwise you could commit a crime such as murder and call it virtuous.

First off, I am going to discuss the virtue expressed by Atticus Finch. During the time of the book, there was strong racial segregation in the United States especially in the southern states such as Alabama (where Maycomb County is located). Black people were seen as inferior to white people, and whites were expected to treat them as such. In this world it would be seen as unacceptable and wrong for a white lawyer to defend a black man as passionately as Atticus did, even if that black man was innocent. By doing just that, Atticus was putting both his professional and personal reputation on the line, a dangerous move for both his financial and physical safety. Atticus understood the dangers, but chose to ignore the rules of social normality because he knew that it was the right thing to do and that it was his duty as a lawyer and a citizen to defend Tom Robinson. For Tom Robinson was a human being like anyone else in Maycomb and Atticus knew that it would be unfair if he didn’t receive his fair trial. The social order discouraged his behavior yet he chose to ignore it because he knew that true virtue could only be achieved by acting against said social order. Not only did he defend a black man, but Atticus was also one of the few people of his time who believed in true equality. This is implied very heavily in the long speech Atticus gave in the courtroom. I think Atticus is a prime example of someone with a strong moral compass.

After reading the book and being exposed to Boo Radley’s character, it was clear to me that Boo Radley himself was abnormal. I came to this conclusion from the facts that he is always kept inside during the day, and from how little he speaks (only a couple of basic sentences). It never stated specifically what his exceptionality was, but I would bet he was on the autism spectrum. At the time when the novel was set, people with disabilities or exceptionalities like Boo’s were frowned upon. They were often institutionalized, or hidden and covered up like in Boo’s case. Due to his exceptionality and the fact that he never left the house during the day, Boo would have obviously had a very different view on the world than other residents of Maycomb. As I implied above, in those days it would be the norm for people like Boo to avoid contact with regular people. Boo stepped outside of the social order by rescuing Jem and Scout from Bob Ewell. If he let the vices of the dominant social order restrain him he would have simply ignored the situation and kept to himself. I think it would be mighty difficult to argue that saving two children from a terrible man wasn’t a virtuous act. Despite his very limited view on things, Boo seemed to know what was right and did so in spite of the social order discouraging him to do so.

By doing the virtuous act of helping out a poor, abused, white girl, Tom Robinson acted against the dominant social order, resulting in him expressing true virtue. At the time of the book it would be seen as unacceptable for a black man and a white woman to be alone together even if the black man was simply helping her out with something like fixing a cabinet. Tom also had the audacity to feel sorry for a white person, implying that she had it worse off than him at a time when it was supposed to be the other way around. If he let the vices and implications of the social order restrain him, he would have never committed his virtuous act of entering the house to help this girl for whom he felt sorry.

These three men are examples of brave people acting against the social order of the time, leading the way for a brighter future. It was due to people like Atticus, Tom, and Boo that things have changed as much, and as quickly as they have since.

Response to "The Pearl" by John Steinbeck

I do not believe that Kino was acting out of selflessness whatsoever in the Pearl. He was trying to sell the pearl in order to benefit himself and his family. Kino set out with no intent to hurt anyone, simply to sell something that would bring greater wealth to his family, and even though he was helping his wife and son as well as himself, he seemed somewhat uninterested in the well-being of others. He may not have cared if his child could attend school, if he wasn't his child, who's happiness and success would be directly linked to his own. Kino had no plans to use his potential profit to start a charity for those who he wasn't obliged to support, at least the book never mentioned such. Although Kino had no negative aspirations or any premonitions of what was to come, his quest for "good" ended very badly. It seems everyone involved in the story would have been better off if Kino had never found the pearl. I sensed that Kino came to this realisation as they returned to thier village, resulting in his disowning of the pearl, even though Juana pressured him to di it beforehand. At times in the story, we also started to see a darker (evil???) side to Kino caused by his aspirations revolving the pearl.

I think the pearl is an example of a story where the protagonist is unable to fullfill his aspirations rendering the sacrifices made on the journey unnecessary. A journey where the hero would have been better off never accepting his call to adventure, even if he didn't know how bad it would end up at the time of the call. Throughout every journey evil is faced, in some cases evil even emerges, but in most ficticious journeys more good than evil is created in the end. Kino never found the good he was chasing, instead only receiving the horrible with no reward (his baby died for what was ultimately nothing!). All of the sacrifices they made were in vain as nothing good came out of thier quest for potential good.

Going back to what I mentionned near the beggining of the post, even though I don't believe that Kino and Juana acted out of selflessness, I persoanally believe that acting selflessly (whilst also respecting yourself) is true virtue. I see helping others solely to get something in return as manipulation, but doing it out of true compassion for that person is true inner virtue. It is very difficult for anybody but you to understand your motives, but to me virtue goes beyond doing good deeds and is directly linked to a person's drive to do them. Virtue is complex and difficult to identify. Buying a burger for someone so it increases your chance of cheating off them on school work, is not true virtue, even if it had cheese! Running into the World Trade Centre on 9/11 to save people they'd never even met, knowing full-well that they'd be risking thier lives doing so expressed true virtue on the part of the 9/11 firefighters.

Were the protagonists virtuous on thier journey in "The Pearl"? According to my own definition of virtue, I would probably place them in somewhat of a gray area, leaning slightly towards "No".

Response to "Anthem" by Ayn Rand

As a Socialist I completely dissagree with Ayn Rand's capitalistic views. In my opinion Ayn Rand shouldn't even be taken too seriously as a philosopher as she has an extreme personal bias against "left" views and opinions. Much of this bias is due to her poor personal experience with communism, and she seems to believe that the only other option is libertarianism. Ayn Rand had a very black and white, unrealistic view on politics. To her there are two options; complete libertarianism or harsh communism. As we've concluded, Ayn Rand thinks that everyone would be better off if everyone thought only of themselves, first and foremost. I get the impression that many of her fellow libertarians promote this idea because they assume that they would end up on top. The chances of this happening are slight at best. In reality what happens is that the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle-class dissapear into poverty. As a whole only a tiny percent of the population would actually benefit... until everyone else revolts.

If everyone is concerned solely with thier own views than who will help them reach the top. The world would turn into a huge battle-royale that nobody wins. If people like Ayn Rand would actually open thier eyes they may notice that many of the world's happiest countries are indeed socialist (scandinavia, 'nuff said). This idea of selfish-ness is also immoral, it is a vision where very few live extremely well, with the majority left suffering in poverty, with no social programs to boot.

To make her views even more ridiculous, if her greed-fueled followers would actually think about the future they might just realise that libertarianism is ultimately bad and unsustainable for business. In a socialist nation, people still have enough money to spend on products, meaning that even if you have to pay everyone a bit more they will have more disposible income. That was Henry Ford's philosophy, who with it made millions upon millions, whilst paying his employees enough to live decent lifes. Everyone won, and that is the goal of socialism. Note, how I am NOT endorsing communism. Socialism endorses that everyone was born equal, but everybody wasn't born the same. In communism, people will have less work initiative, why should they? They have no oppportunity for financial improvement. In socialism they do, whilst ensuring that everyone can live good lives. Just because someone doesn't have as much education as someone else, doesn't mean that they don't put in the same amount of work hours. Every (legal) job is important, so why should we force honest workers to live in poverty. I could literally be at my computer all night, typing away about why Ayn Rand's views are both un-ethical and un-intelligent, but I know we all have other things to do.

To answer the question of whether the statement still carries relevence, I would say not, or atleast it shouldn't. As I previously mentioned, there are endless examples where capitaism has failed, yet fewer where socialism and other left-wing options have. Equality-72521 is clearly living in an extreme, ad absurdum communist world where ideas are not welcomely accepted, requiring people to break free of the rules to create potentially positive change. However, in the real world (which she insists is communist) if businesses are free of regulations than they may start emploiting people. Afterall, the sole purpose of a business is to make a profit.

In conclusion Ayn Rand was a possibly sociapathic radicalist, who's world views are no longer relevent (not that they ever should have been), as they are impractical, immoral, and un-wise.

I don't mean to kick the dead horse, but Anthem was an bad book to boot.

"Happiness is only real when shared," -Christopher McCandless