For lastvoyages: Second Casefile [Written]

[cannibalmind]

[Private]
Case Study Two: Richard, "Ritchie", Inmate to Will Graham, last name unknown.

Ritchie presents as a quietly nervous young man with the distinct goatish odor of schizophrenia to him. Outwardly neat, presentable and soft-spoken, he carries around a tremendous amount of tension and I suspect has a violent temper. From his dependency and immaturity I suspect that he never had the opportunity to grow in a healthy manner before he was struck down by his illness. He does not appear to have received treatment, or even a clear diagnosis from a professional, and may well be in complete denial about his illness. Will and I discussed him, and his Warden agrees that acknowledging what the young man has suffered, alone or near to it and certainly without proper help, will be key to gaining his trust and cooperation. Despite his illness and certain...unpleasant proclivities toward women, he strikes me as quite intelligent and with a great deal of untapped potential.

Note to self: talk to him one on one.

[Public]
Every culture and society has its own moral standards. I speak not of the laws of a society, but rather its unwritten cultural rules and mores--that which is assumed to be so obviously right and wrong that it need not even be codified.


As an example, consider the four Japanese Pillars of Moral Character. [His pronunciation of each term is perfect.] On is the principle of repaying one's debts, both literal and debts of honor. Gimu is the principle of owing allegiance to the holder of any debts you cannot repay, such as when one owes one's life to another. Giri refers to the execution of one's obligations, both of occupation and of private life, to the best of one's ability. Finally, Ninjo, the compassionate acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of all people and in a larger sense, all living things. The value of these principles were impressed upon me in my youth, and I have come to be reminded of them of late.

Yet no moral code means much of anything unless it is internalized and brought into action by individual people. In internalizing cultural mores, of course, the mores themselves tend to change. People will relate to one part of a code and yet find others irrelevant to their lives; others will attempt the whole exercise, subsuming any personal moral thought in favor of what their society deems to be right. And even then, the ways in which each person acts upon commonly accepted morals changes with their characters. A soldier sees nothing contradictory in fighting for peace, for example, though he by all rights values it more by knowing its opposite so intimately. Yet many civilians would see this as a contradiction. They forget the need for rough men standing ready in the night because violence is so foreign to their day to day experience. Who is right? Is there not room in society for both points of view?

Is morality rigidly unshakeable at its heart, or is it fluid and subject to cultural, situational and personal relativity? I would argue the latter...but only to a point. Like a willow tree, morality bends with the wind, but it has certain immovable roots. Can they be identified and agreed upon? And if so, what are they?

Where is your baseline for morality? What do you believe are the moral arguments that all can agree upon, or which are most practical?

Comments

[truth_is_cold]

[Argh. Cannibal. But argh. Philosophical moral talk. Philosophy makes for grabby hands.]

I'm not a subscriber to group morality. I was taught that each individual should, as you said, form their own morality. Not so that they would follow an empty ideal, or be ignorant of moral character altogether. But beliefs formed through observation, education, and experience hold more significance than those impressed by convention.

Therefore, my moral arguments may be agreed upon. Or they may not be, based upon the fact I'm an inmate. The only reason I have for them to be accepted is for me to exist as part of a community and a social group.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Interesting. Do you believe it is necessary then to give up portions of one's personal code in order to be compatible with one's society?

[truth_is_cold]

I believe that depends. A person is an individual, and if stripping that morality compromises what makes that person proud of who they are, then they shouldn't. They should maintain their morality, and use it to the best of their ability.

But if someone is part of a society that they largely approve of, save one or two exceptions, perhaps they can reconsider their perceptions.

[doctor-j-crane.livejournal.com]

Why on earth are you talking about this?

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

It was on my mind.

[i_like_your]

My reading suggestion was of assistance.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

It certainly offered me food for thought.

[Private]
Who is this child making a pest of himself in my nice discussion? He doesn't seem to do anything but whine and try to contradict people.

[no_fastolfe]

Individual advancement, so long as that advancement does not cause another individual to be deprived of basic necessities, is the highest goal of the Spacer worlds.

[Vasilia is not so much defensive as pre-emptively hostile. Her paranoia tells her that everyone must and will disagree and attack her and she addresses them, unconsciously, accordingly.]

It is the spoken and unspoken moral center of us. We will co-operate in our research when the need is dire, and no one of us would allow a fellow Spacer to starve, as it is the surplus of resources that allows our society to thrive, and that infrastructure that we will co-operate to maintain. The fourth principal of this planet you mention, compassion, can surely be understood as 'enlightened self interest', and yet I hear such sentimentality attached to it!

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

The Japanese are a rather sentimental race, yes. Enlightened self-interest is an interesting redefinition, however. If one's sense of self includes one's interdependence with others, it is I suppose a very logical progression.

[Nope, no hostility here yet. He's too polite.]

[hourglass-twin.livejournal.com]

I return life debts...other than that, my morals aren't terribly firm. I think all can agree that murder is wrong, at least most of the time, but it's hardly practical. It's wrong to bully those weaker than oneself.

That's honestly all I can think of.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

You have honor. That is respectable, especially if it is fluid enough that it defines instead of confines one.

To be completely honest I think I prefer men of your power to be honorable and to dislike bullies.

[gammabruce]

I'm not naive enough to believe violence will ever go away. But I am optimistic - possibly idealistic - in hoping there won't be a need for wars and killing at some point in the future.

Much as I hate to admit it, I think some morals, with certain people are, unfortunately, relative to the current situation. 'Fluid' as you put it fits aptly.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

There is no longer a need for war now. Wars nowadays exist for ideology's sake and for profit rather than for survival. Unfortunately human consciousness simply has not caught up to that fact. Society certainly has not.

[requiresssacrifice]

Hm.

Back home, I never put much thought into morality. It seemed... irrelevant to my pursuits.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

I can relate. There was always a sense of necessity beyond morality, a point at which morals become a hindrance to advancement. However, my own views were heavily tainted by vengeance, and individual experiences certainly vary.

[neuroticalson.livejournal.com]

Morality is a crutch. Society uses it to beat you down so the strong and smart don't tear the weak and stupid to shreds. The idiots have strength in numbers, and - usually - numbers make the rules.

My baseline for morality is nowhere.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

Absolute amorality. How is it then that you have not self-destructed or been destroyed by society? Or was that what got you here?

[im-spiderman.livejournal.com]

As ta yer first set o' questions, there are societies who can't forget that need as a group because fighting is never far enough away ta grow foreign and always harsh enough ta be needed. I can't speak for places where they do have tha time ta forget it, o' course, but it seems ta me it'd take someone a tad odd ta deny respect ta the men who fight for his sake.

And tha rest... I doubt ye'll find much that all can agree on when everyone comes from such different lands with different ideas on what's right for them ta be doin'. [Inmates.]

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

I thoroughly agree that those who protect a society should be remembered. This is a matter of both ideology and logic. Safety does not manifest out of thin air; it is worked for by those who venture outside of its zone.

Perhaps there is no consensus to be found. Yet one can learn a great deal simply by asking.

[audio; PRIVATE (thank you, Pink)]

[frickinbaretta.livejournal.com]

[Freddy thinks for a long time before hazarding a response. It's too close to things he's wondered about himself but been afraid to examine too closely, dangerously close, but like a moth drawn to flame he can't help but answer the call.

He contents himself with assuming the guy's a warden; he SEEMS like a warden, anyway.

Unlike his earlier endeavors on the communicator, the punk-ass turns of phrase and dropping of letters are gone. You're speaking to Freddy, Hannibal. Not Freddy-As-Orange, not Orange, but Freddy.]

What if your giris don't mesh?

[Clumsy; he's close on pronunciation, but it's nowhere near as perfect as Hannibal's.]

Like, you agree to help one guy out, and then you say you're gonna help somebody else but you can't do both 'cause they go against each other?

[audio; PRIVATE]

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

If one is honor bound to enough obligations, eventually some of them will end up at cross purposes with each other. It is in this way that people end up with unpayable debts whose holders they must honor.

Let me give you an example. A man is obligated to remain free and able to practice in his profession. He is also obligated to treat his friends well and do them no harm. Yet one day a friend discovers that the man has done something illegal. As a law officer the friend's own giri demands that he report the crime. He ends up conflicted between two obligations--between his friend and the law--just as the first man is conflicted between his friend and his obligation to keep his good name and keep his life from ruin.

In each case, all that they can do is their best. They must choose, while doing the best they can to make up for the path they could not honor. In this particular case, the first man attacked the second to keep him from reporting him. Because of this and similar activities he now has a lifelong debt to the other, which he executes largely using the skills of his profession.

In short--it is one hell of a problem, yes. But the most that can be expected of any man is that he do his best to honor both obligations however he can.

[what_ho_jeeves]

[Watch Bertie try to engage in a discussion of ethical philosophy.]

I think that everyone but the worst of blackguards can agree that hurting a girl's feelings is simply not on. And I'm sure one of those brainy chaps says so somewhere. Spinoza or somesuch.

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

Spoken like a true romantic of the old school. Civility is terribly important, is it not?

[nicebluehat.livejournal.com]

[This is more of an excuse for the private post than anything.] It's certainly possible to hold oneself to a different moral standard than one holds society, being more willing to forgive ourselves for certain mistakes, or maybe less willing, than we are when other people commit them. I think that it differs depending on who you owe pardon, and in practice on the individual person. And in general, I think most people are able to justify more as "not really wrong" when they're the one doing it.

That's not to say it's right they do, though.

[private, Japanese]
If it's not too familiar a question, how much time have you spent in Japan?

[He'll notice that she's being if anything too polite in her grammar and pronouns. Nothing like Japanese for etiquette and distinguishing social levels.]

[private; very good Japanese for a nonnative]

[cannibalmind.livejournal.com]

You make an excellent point.

Ah--I spent eight years being raised by my aunt, a descendant of Lady Murasaki. We visited Japan on a few occasions, but most of what I learned I learned from her.

[He is keeping to polite pronouns as well, despite her age.]