I decided to explore prompt #9 because it's something I've pondered before. I was once asked a multiple choice question which read "Imagine that you receive a document that absolutely proves whether or not God exists. Upon reading the document and finding the truth, you must decide whether or not to share the proof with the world. Which would you do?" After reading the answers possible, I was surprised to find that my answer was "share the truth only if it proves God exists." This answer likely isn't the most popular answer and it may not even be the morally right answer, but it's the one which feels right to me. For some, the only hope they have is that there is a God who created the universe who would rather die than spend an eternity without them. To take that away from these people, simply because I (in this scenario) know it isn't true, would be cruel. It also stands to reason that, without the idea of God, some people may believe that they can do whatever they want because there is no such thing as eternal accountability. I think that, if I knew there was no God, I would go on acting as I do. I would keep working in youth ministry, keep going to Mass, keep going to Confession. For me, Religion is a way to be a better person. It has taught me discipline and gives a set of guidelines by which to live my life. Without religion, I would be a different person entirely, and I'm not sure that the change would be favorable.
I think the most interesting contrast between Crimes and Misdemeanors and Crime and Punishment is the motive behind the crime. Both crimes were, essentially the same. Raskolnikov kills two women, Judah wears Dolores down mentally and makes her feel like she is worth very little, then hires someone else to do the dirty work. The major difference between these is that Raskolnikov believes he is bettering society by killing the pawnbroker. He has heard a lot about the woman and how she deals with others and decides that it would be better if she weren't around. Judah kills Dolores to protect himself. He's afraid of his name being soiled. This is clear both in his dealings with Dolores and in his anger at Cliff for how he was portrayed in Cliff's film. His motive behind killing Dolores is selfish and his unhealthy self-obsession will likely lead to his eventual ruin. While both murders are unjustifiable, when one analyzes the two cases, s/he is more likely to sympathize with Raskolnikov than with Judah because of the intent behind the act.
That formatting is super annoying. I don't know what happened. Sorry!
ReplyDeleteBrittany, nice job! You clearly have thought about the conflict of truth versus religion. I agree with the idea that many people rely on religion in order to live morally and give them guidance, in addition to the sense wholeness/comfort it provides. However, I would challenge you to think about the idea of breaking the news about the hypothetical disreality of God. Many say ignorance is bliss, however what if the information came out from another source? Would you still want to keep the information to yourself or would you want to intervene? Perhaps, in intervening, you could show others how, even though God may not exist, in the sense that many once believed, many good things have come from his teaching and that despite this truth it does not make biblical morals any more or less valuable. Just something to consider. I, also, agree with what you said about feeling more sympathy for Raskolnikov than for Judah. Judah seems to have come from a place of privilege and then soiled it out of selfish desire, where Raskolnikov was destitute and perhaps entirely mad. This makes Judah much less likable and his crime seem more cold and brutal.
ReplyDeleteTruth versus Religion is a very interesting concept to tackle and i think that you did a very good job at arguing the two points. Raskolnikov is also much more sympathetic than Judah. Judah's crime was just to hide shame.
ReplyDelete