Corsica insula est.
As I mentioned earlier I am not a particular fan of desert and here I am going to attempt to figure out why. sorry I'm late with this post, I got distracted with my Latin homework. Anyway the idea that one should decide to help someone on the basis of whether or not they are deserving seems wrong. I am willing to entertain the possibility that when someone's well being isn't so great that it is not such a great breeding ground for ethical action. An increase in well being may well be the basis for a change in the way someone lives one life. Perhaps this can be illustrated by the prison ministry; in particular I have in mind the example of Malcolm X. Whilst Malcolm was in prison he was introduced to Islam and his life changed dramatically, so much so that he became a prominent figure in the civil rights movement and recent American history in general. I think it is right to say that the adoption of Islam increased Malcolm's well being and with it his moral worth as a human being.
Or along similar lines the character Jean Valjean in Les Miserables is saved from arrest by the local Bishop and given candlesticks among other valuable items. The Bishop by increasing Valjean's wealth and preventing his arrest increased Valjean's well being overall. This allowed Valjean's life to take a great turn for the better and later in life he himself becomes well known for his generosity and goodness. Surely, the thief Valjean would not have deserved the help that the Bishop gave him, but what of the later rich and generous Mayor Valjean? The Bishop knowing that the thief Valjean was "unworthy" gave him succor with great success.
Therefore I see such examples as sufficient enough reason to help other people where I can.
However I have neglected whether the more interesting case. That is the case where all things being equal except that one person has great potential for good and the other great potential for evil. One would think that one should necessarily help the good and increase that person's well being. Though I should wonder if instead we should not help the one prone to evil as a single merciful act can go a long way thus contributing to the greater good. It is an intrinsic good that one should be turned from evil to good. In addition even if the person does not realize that he has been helped, he has another opportunity to change, to become worthy and to help others.
Or along similar lines the character Jean Valjean in Les Miserables is saved from arrest by the local Bishop and given candlesticks among other valuable items. The Bishop by increasing Valjean's wealth and preventing his arrest increased Valjean's well being overall. This allowed Valjean's life to take a great turn for the better and later in life he himself becomes well known for his generosity and goodness. Surely, the thief Valjean would not have deserved the help that the Bishop gave him, but what of the later rich and generous Mayor Valjean? The Bishop knowing that the thief Valjean was "unworthy" gave him succor with great success.
Therefore I see such examples as sufficient enough reason to help other people where I can.
However I have neglected whether the more interesting case. That is the case where all things being equal except that one person has great potential for good and the other great potential for evil. One would think that one should necessarily help the good and increase that person's well being. Though I should wonder if instead we should not help the one prone to evil as a single merciful act can go a long way thus contributing to the greater good. It is an intrinsic good that one should be turned from evil to good. In addition even if the person does not realize that he has been helped, he has another opportunity to change, to become worthy and to help others.
posted by Oakwise at
12:35 AM
1 Comments:
It is mostly a gut reaction, or a crass intuition that makes me uncomfortable about treating someone according to their dessert (lemon sorbet). However, it is cases like Jen raises in her entry, as well as Dave’s Malcom X case--call them “scrooge cases”-- where someone dastardly is given more or exactly the opposite of what their dessert (brownies) imply and they turn their lives around as a result, that convince me even moreso.
It seems that in cases like scrooge, where someone is overwhelmed by treatment above and beyond what they deserve, they are likely to turn their lives around and much more progress can be made toward the greater good. To paraphrase what Jen said: People who are met with negativity, according to what is allotted to them in their desserts (tiramisu), are likely to respond with like negativity; however if they are met with unprecedented kindness, regardless of their desserts (parfait) they may be convinced to mend their ways.
Now, admittedly scrooge cases do not completely discount the value of dessert (jello), they merely imply a counter-intuitive approach to desserts (snickerdoodles). In other words, it may be said that one’s desserts (cupcakes) should not generally be negative, that one always deserves a second chance, or positive reinforcement such that it would greater increase their well being (and likewise they would experience a decrease in their well-being if we handed them negative desserts [peach cobbler]). Positive reinforcement seems, in light of these cases, to be a powerful tool to bring about future change. (This is not to say that negative reinforcement is completely ineffectual, simply that it may not be as effective as rewards where they are not expected.) So, it seems that I have not escaped the value of desserts (malt shakes), I have just shown how they might not always be effective in the superficial sense. (This appears to be more an argument for no one truly deserving punishment, or some other such notion...not that deserts are to be discounted.) So I will have to say more if I am to support why desserts (tapioca pudding) are not to be so highly valued. However, because giving someone their just desserts (cinnamon buns) does not always lead to a betterment of the overall situation; there is still at least a tiny something, it seems, I can take away from this to feed my intuition against the value of desserts (churros), even though it does not allow me to discount it entirely.
Unfortunately, I do not have any real coherent arguments against the value of desserts (pound cake), I’m still mulling it over in my head. So for now I’ll remain casually skeptical about it, and not claim outright opposition. That’s not very interesting of me I guess, but I like being “on the fence.”
By
Tommy G!, at 11:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home