--- JIM DOHERTY <
jimdohertyjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Spenser stands by and lets the murder occur
without
> interference. This isn't allowing Hawk to "live
by
> his code." This is allowing a murder to occur,
when
> he's already decided that this murder is
> unacceptable
> morally or ethically, and, further, when he has
the
> means at hand to prevent it. By deciding not
to
> prevent it he, in effect, becomes an accomplice
to
> the
> very murder he's already decided is
immoral.
What you're missing here is that Spenser didn't decide the
murder was immoral. He decided it was immoral for HIM to
commit it. Spenser's code is a personal one--part of it, I
would argue, is that he doesn't impose his code on others.
This is part of what made their relationship so hard on
Susan, according to VALEDICTION and A CATSKILL EAGLE, and he
learned through a number of books in the late 80s that his
code was not universally applicable.
> This is not Spenser making a decision than
allowing
> his friend to make a different one. This is
Spenser
> PRETENDING to make a decision, than not
following
> through and facing the consequences of his
decision,
> one of which is that if he's morally obligated
not
> to
> murder the bad guy, then it follows that
he's
> morally
> obligated to prevent anyone else from murdering
the
> bad guy.
It does not follow. A moral obligation is often personal. An
example that jumps to mind is that orthodox Jews are morally
prevented from eating pork, but not morally obligated to
prevent anyone else from eating it. Living in the south, I
know many fundamental Christians who would never read Spenser
in the first place, simply because they believe the subject
matter to be immoral. But I don't know anyone who would
attempt to prevent me from doing so.
(Although I'm sure they're out there, of course--no offense
to anyone's personal beliefs intended.)
In one paragraph you state that Spenser has become an
accomplice to murder, and in the next that he is avoiding
consequence. I would argue that those are contradictory
statements. He's willing to accept the consequences of being
an accomplice, obviously. He's willing to be an accomplice to
murder, because backing up Hawk is part of his code as much
as not murdering the guy in the first place.
I'm not trying to say that his code makes much sense in any
practical way--just that it exists, and that Hawk serves to
illustrate it, not to allow him to violate it with
impunity.
G.
===== George C. Upper III, Editor The Lightning Bell Poetry
Journal http://www.lightningbell.org/
__________________________________________________ Do You
Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 14 Nov 2001 EST