The Rest Of My Life Is So Hard, I Need A Photo Opportunity, I Want A Shot At Redemption, Don't Want To End Up A Cartoon, In A Cartoon Graveyard
--"You Can Call Me Al", Paul Simon
last week at Kerri Ray's very belated birthday dinner...
MS - So are you saying that without consequences that ethics get thrown out the window? Or are you saying that without consequences that one can sublimate one's code of ethics?
KR - More the former than the latter. It's my assertion that were people allowed to express their most base desires, without fear of repercussions or prosecution, those people would fail to do the right thing more often than not.
MS - So in your example how would that be applied?
KR - Well, using murder as an example, if one could do away with an individual that was despised with full assurances she would never be convicted then there would be more murders. Consequences dictates behavior.
MS - I see your point and I do agree with it, but I think you have to make allowances for a collary to your theory.
KR - Being?
MS - Being that I believe that, if people could gain the results they desire without having to go through the process, I think they wouldn't be so hesitant to want for unethical results either. It's kind of akin to the theory that people will always take the easy way out. If it's easier to do away with someone that annoys you than allow them to live, then that person would be killed every time.
KR - Granted, there is something to be said about that, but how would this correspond to my example. How can you kill someone without murdering them?
MS - Well, what's the practical result of killing someone? Not their death, but their disappearance. It follows then that, if there were some means by which to do away with someone without them actually having to be killed, there would be no ethical gray zone. If you could literally make someone disappear at the touch of a finger then there would be no qualms about quote-unquote spilling their blood. I'm not afraid to say that such an approach would cause me no uneasiness in the least.
KR - But wouldn't there be some conscientious objection on your part to the loss of life even if it isn't the actual ceasing of life through physical means?
MS - No more so than the loss of life without societal judgment. In either case there exists a state of apathy on the part of the test subject. In your case, he is apathetic to his own moral code. He knows it's wrong because he feels it's wrong, but, because society does not judge one way or the other, he feels secure in his decision to commit the action. In my case, he feels he is still within his ethical boundaries. He did not take a life so he is not a murderer in his eyes. In my case, he is apathetic to the results themselves. He produces the same results, but through less guilt-inducing means.
KR - What we're basically saying is that were we presented with the opportunity to rub someone off without fear of being charged, we'd both not hesitate? That's rather scary.
MS - But the difference is I wouldn't kill anyone.
KR - And I wouldn't be guilt-ridden because I'd be allowed to persist in complete honesty with my actions.
MS - What if we were to move it to something less adversarial?
KR - Such as?
MS - Relationships?
KR - And since when isn't love or our approximate represantation of it not adversarial? Wasn't it just a few decades ago that songs were written about how love is a battlefield?
MS - That's evasion and you know it.
KR - So the idea is that, if one could have a relationship following one of our two models, how would that be accomplished? Then, establishing that, which would be the more favorable of the two? Hmmm. Intriguing.
If we were to apply such conditions to my model it would approximate a relationship which could proceed along without resolute feelings being attached to a relationship. The relationship would have to be billed "as is" and no subsequent attachment would have to be agreed upon before the relationship could be entered into. It would be like a No Buyer's Remorse clause placed onto the affair, but instead of not being able to sell back the relationship, there would be a ban on commenting on or retaliating against the other member of the relationship should that relationship cease due to whatever cause may arise.
MS - And in my model it would have to be some manner of relationship where one could no longer be with an individual without actually having to break up with them. It would have to arise out of some sort of amnesia condition where, according to the other member in the relationship, as you put it, the relationship never existed. Same result, less combative means.
KR - I think I would draw the line at playing with actual human attachment, though. That's a little like playing with fire. The whole point of having a relationship with someone is to have that capability of feeling something substantial, of feeling at all. Taking feeling out of the equation, in my mind, would disqualify that arrangement as being a real relationship according to conventional standards.
MS - You're right, of course. I mean--we're both just playing Devil's advocates here. There has to be guilt and conscience and remorse to have any real connection. I could not imagine being chained to a relationship of convenience, where nothing could go wrong because, if it did, the relationship could be erased like last week's taping of 24. There has to be some sort of stakes to have any real shot of winning big.
KR - Which means the opposite must be correct as well. There has to be some sort of reward to have any real shot of losing something meaningful.
MS - And what of the middle ground? What of those relationships that don't really have any room for improvement or degredation? What do you make of those?
KR - I think such a relationship is transient in nature. All conditions, if placed in the universe we live in and subject to the same natural laws we abide by, do not remain fixed. A relationship is doomed to succeed or compelled to failure.
if you'll be my bodyguard
I can be your long lost pal
MS - But your definition of success might differ from someone else's?
KR - Such as yourself?
MS - Possibly. I mean what if I were to propose that every time a man and a woman connect at a basic level that I do not believe a successful relationship doesn't always need be a romantic one? Where is written that every successful venture end with the same result every time? That'd be like saying the only successful people are those who graduate college and get married before thirty. If you were to use that definition, I'd have no hope of ever being successful. I don't think there's a hard line when it comes to a successful relationship.
KR - I think there is a hard-line when it comes to relationship. And I think it's when two people are of a like mind when it comes to their perspective of the relationship. When one individual wants a more intimate progression and the other discounts any such future being possible that, in my mind, constitutes a failed relationship.
MS - It's not that I don't believe such a fate isn't the ideal, but sometimes what's ideal and what's possible are not intertwined.
KR - And what if they are?
MS - Then I would have to refer back to the earlier argument you made, an individual's perspective about relationships, even the relationship he may be in, does not remain fixed. There's always a shot at redemption, always a possibility that his perspective may change.
The one basic law of human nature is that no one chooses to be alone; it's pretty much chosen for him. That basic need can and has led to an individual forsaking any clinical detachment to what he believes he wants in order to actively gain what he subconsciously desires.
KR - That's good. I would very much hate to think that two people who seem well-suited can be driven apart for frivolous reasons such as principles.
MS - And I would hate to think that two people who seem well-suited can be driven apart for frivolous reasons such as momentum.
KR - Then we're in agreement?
MS - As much as the two of us ever are. I believe you've hurt my brain again, Miss Hamilton.
KR - And I believe your mind will heal with the arrivial of a fortuitous chocolate-laced concoction, Mr. Taroc. Summon the waiter and I shall expect some frivolous nourishment awaiting me when I return from the ladies' room.
MS - Thy will be done.
Yours Swimmingly,
mojo shivers
last week at Kerri Ray's very belated birthday dinner...MS - So are you saying that without consequences that ethics get thrown out the window? Or are you saying that without consequences that one can sublimate one's code of ethics?
KR - More the former than the latter. It's my assertion that were people allowed to express their most base desires, without fear of repercussions or prosecution, those people would fail to do the right thing more often than not.
MS - So in your example how would that be applied?
KR - Well, using murder as an example, if one could do away with an individual that was despised with full assurances she would never be convicted then there would be more murders. Consequences dictates behavior.
MS - I see your point and I do agree with it, but I think you have to make allowances for a collary to your theory.
KR - Being?
MS - Being that I believe that, if people could gain the results they desire without having to go through the process, I think they wouldn't be so hesitant to want for unethical results either. It's kind of akin to the theory that people will always take the easy way out. If it's easier to do away with someone that annoys you than allow them to live, then that person would be killed every time.
KR - Granted, there is something to be said about that, but how would this correspond to my example. How can you kill someone without murdering them?
MS - Well, what's the practical result of killing someone? Not their death, but their disappearance. It follows then that, if there were some means by which to do away with someone without them actually having to be killed, there would be no ethical gray zone. If you could literally make someone disappear at the touch of a finger then there would be no qualms about quote-unquote spilling their blood. I'm not afraid to say that such an approach would cause me no uneasiness in the least.
KR - But wouldn't there be some conscientious objection on your part to the loss of life even if it isn't the actual ceasing of life through physical means?
MS - No more so than the loss of life without societal judgment. In either case there exists a state of apathy on the part of the test subject. In your case, he is apathetic to his own moral code. He knows it's wrong because he feels it's wrong, but, because society does not judge one way or the other, he feels secure in his decision to commit the action. In my case, he feels he is still within his ethical boundaries. He did not take a life so he is not a murderer in his eyes. In my case, he is apathetic to the results themselves. He produces the same results, but through less guilt-inducing means.
KR - What we're basically saying is that were we presented with the opportunity to rub someone off without fear of being charged, we'd both not hesitate? That's rather scary.
MS - But the difference is I wouldn't kill anyone.
KR - And I wouldn't be guilt-ridden because I'd be allowed to persist in complete honesty with my actions.
MS - What if we were to move it to something less adversarial?
KR - Such as?
MS - Relationships?
KR - And since when isn't love or our approximate represantation of it not adversarial? Wasn't it just a few decades ago that songs were written about how love is a battlefield?
MS - That's evasion and you know it.
KR - So the idea is that, if one could have a relationship following one of our two models, how would that be accomplished? Then, establishing that, which would be the more favorable of the two? Hmmm. Intriguing.
If we were to apply such conditions to my model it would approximate a relationship which could proceed along without resolute feelings being attached to a relationship. The relationship would have to be billed "as is" and no subsequent attachment would have to be agreed upon before the relationship could be entered into. It would be like a No Buyer's Remorse clause placed onto the affair, but instead of not being able to sell back the relationship, there would be a ban on commenting on or retaliating against the other member of the relationship should that relationship cease due to whatever cause may arise.
MS - And in my model it would have to be some manner of relationship where one could no longer be with an individual without actually having to break up with them. It would have to arise out of some sort of amnesia condition where, according to the other member in the relationship, as you put it, the relationship never existed. Same result, less combative means.
KR - I think I would draw the line at playing with actual human attachment, though. That's a little like playing with fire. The whole point of having a relationship with someone is to have that capability of feeling something substantial, of feeling at all. Taking feeling out of the equation, in my mind, would disqualify that arrangement as being a real relationship according to conventional standards.
MS - You're right, of course. I mean--we're both just playing Devil's advocates here. There has to be guilt and conscience and remorse to have any real connection. I could not imagine being chained to a relationship of convenience, where nothing could go wrong because, if it did, the relationship could be erased like last week's taping of 24. There has to be some sort of stakes to have any real shot of winning big.
KR - Which means the opposite must be correct as well. There has to be some sort of reward to have any real shot of losing something meaningful.
MS - And what of the middle ground? What of those relationships that don't really have any room for improvement or degredation? What do you make of those?
KR - I think such a relationship is transient in nature. All conditions, if placed in the universe we live in and subject to the same natural laws we abide by, do not remain fixed. A relationship is doomed to succeed or compelled to failure.
if you'll be my bodyguard
I can be your long lost pal
MS - But your definition of success might differ from someone else's?
KR - Such as yourself?
MS - Possibly. I mean what if I were to propose that every time a man and a woman connect at a basic level that I do not believe a successful relationship doesn't always need be a romantic one? Where is written that every successful venture end with the same result every time? That'd be like saying the only successful people are those who graduate college and get married before thirty. If you were to use that definition, I'd have no hope of ever being successful. I don't think there's a hard line when it comes to a successful relationship.
KR - I think there is a hard-line when it comes to relationship. And I think it's when two people are of a like mind when it comes to their perspective of the relationship. When one individual wants a more intimate progression and the other discounts any such future being possible that, in my mind, constitutes a failed relationship.
MS - It's not that I don't believe such a fate isn't the ideal, but sometimes what's ideal and what's possible are not intertwined.
KR - And what if they are?
MS - Then I would have to refer back to the earlier argument you made, an individual's perspective about relationships, even the relationship he may be in, does not remain fixed. There's always a shot at redemption, always a possibility that his perspective may change.
The one basic law of human nature is that no one chooses to be alone; it's pretty much chosen for him. That basic need can and has led to an individual forsaking any clinical detachment to what he believes he wants in order to actively gain what he subconsciously desires.
KR - That's good. I would very much hate to think that two people who seem well-suited can be driven apart for frivolous reasons such as principles.
MS - And I would hate to think that two people who seem well-suited can be driven apart for frivolous reasons such as momentum.
KR - Then we're in agreement?
MS - As much as the two of us ever are. I believe you've hurt my brain again, Miss Hamilton.
KR - And I believe your mind will heal with the arrivial of a fortuitous chocolate-laced concoction, Mr. Taroc. Summon the waiter and I shall expect some frivolous nourishment awaiting me when I return from the ladies' room.
MS - Thy will be done.
Yours Swimmingly,
mojo shivers
posted by mojo shivers @ 12:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home