For ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
lastvoyages: Second Casefile [Written]
Sep. 12th, 2011 05:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
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?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-13 07:02 pm (UTC)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.
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-13 10:12 pm (UTC)[That's...not even remotely reassuring.]
It makes it sound like life's just a bunch of obligations woven together like some kind of spiderweb that's bent to drive you insane.
But then again, fuck, that's life in a nutshell, isn't it? "Do your best and hope it doesn't screw you over too bad."
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-13 10:20 pm (UTC)But no, life is not merely about obligation...unless you are Japanese, of course, they seem to thrive on them. You have an obligation to yourself, as well. When caught up in such circumstances, the best thing to do is to take one of two ways. One, you decide right then and there, with the suddenness of a hawk's strike, choosing to live with the consequences. Two, you step back, and give yourself time to find your center and ponder the best course.
Either way requires a great deal of self-confidence and decisiveness. It is not easy. But it is doable.
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-14 12:53 pm (UTC)[You're fooling no-one, Freddy, but it's adorable that you think you can. You might as well have just said "I'm asking for a friend".]
So...do whatever sits right with you, whatever you're gonna be able to live with the best. See, that makes more sense than having to worry about owing people shit.
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-14 07:06 pm (UTC)Sometimes the choices one makes in this manner lead to regrets. The idea of a moral debt gives a person a way of salving guilt and improving the debt laden relationship. I am in the process of doing just that with one of my relationships. It is an option.
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-14 09:54 pm (UTC)[Not that he's saying repaying moral debts isn't good. He's just...looking for a way to feel better about things because he CAN'T repay his. Not any time soon, anyway.]
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-14 11:34 pm (UTC)[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-15 10:24 pm (UTC)Dying for anything isn't fucking noble. It's just death; it's ugly and it hurts like a sonofabitch and it's just... There's nothing noble about it. It's people at their worst, only they don't get better, eventually they just fucking stop. Just about anything's better than dying for something.
[Don't mind him, he's just more worked up over things than he thought he was. He'll get over it. Or so he'd claim.]
But balance, yeah, that I get, that makes sense. Everything in moderation, right?
[audio; PRIVATE]
Date: 2011-09-15 11:05 pm (UTC)Indeed. Everything in moderation.