The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion
This topic is about
Jude the Obscure
Thomas Hardy Collection
>
Jude the Obscure: Week 1 - Part First
Mod
Sexually transmitted diseases were not only a concern for working women, but for married women as well. If hubby chose to be with a prostitute which was no uncommon, they could easily bring the disease home to the wife.
Bill wrote: "I think its a vile atrocity. But the people who are doing it are in the very throes of moral passion according to what they think is right and wrong. "I suppose you are correct, Bill, in saying that these people must have believed that what they are doing is right. I mean any alternative to that, is horrific beyond description...
..and actually, so is the reverse equally horrific.
I mean- did the inquisitors putting people on the torture benches truly believe that what they were doing was the right thing to do? Did King David truly think it was the right thing to do to commit genocide and torture people while he was at it?
Did the mother who strangled/smothered her own daughter because the daughter's brothers had made her pregnant, really believe she was doing the right thing?
If so, that is also frightening. The next thought that comes up, is: did the Nazi's truly think...
Bill wrote: This is meaningful--because in the scripture "The Letter" is precisely the moral code. Etc...No-one I know adheres to these 'laws' or knows anything about them in the format you give Bill and yet they are all perfectly moral people, as are my entire atheist, non-biblical family. Christianity came late on the scene as far as such moral codes and laws go - there are plenty of others about in ancient literature.
I do not see what 'empathy' has to do with it. We do not have to empathise with anything to adhere to any sort of code or law. Indeed we obey many laws whilst disagreeing with them. Empathy 'is the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another semi-sentient being'.
That, say, the 10 commandments are laws to you does not make them laws for other people who choose to abide by them for different reasons. I abide by them but they are not laws to me. Philosophically speaking they are ancient moral codes based on ethics. Most of them appear in the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance, but there they are not called laws, the are incorporated into stories. Confucious mentions one or two of them in his Analects which are not laws either.
I do not agree that Jude's should have been guilty over premarital sex nor do I agree that being kind to the rooks was immoral. And I certainly do not agree that it was 'unmanly' of him to let his wife take care of their livelihood etc. I was not even aware that 'unmanliness' was ethical/unethical, moral/immoral and I do not like the term. Victorians might have agreed with you but I am with Hardy on these issues and feel that times they were a-changin.
In short--St. Paul means to say that moral codes kill--but a heart of love brings life.
I haven't the faintest idea what this means. How can, for instance, a moral code like Thou Shalt Not Kill, kill? And life is present without love.
I do not understand why I should hug you although you are welcome to one from a seemingly immoral reprobate if you can stand it! I just do not understand you a lot of the time so put my foot in it.
Mod
I have to disagree a bit here. Moral codes can also be developed by watching others bad behavior and not wanting to duplicate that. I think also everybody has some kind of inner moral compass that says this behavior is not right. For me, it doesn't always come from what I was taught, but what I sense to be right.
Traveller wrote: Hehe- when I think of the word 'morals' I tend to see a tight-lipped old lady in black with pince-nez glasses, pursing her mouth and wagging her finger........but seriously, I think it means more what you believe is right and wrong.LOL. Are you describing me here Traveller??:D:D
I would very much put the emphasis on the YOU here - what is right and wrong in one society or at one period of history is not necessarily right or wrong in another. In the UK today, for instance, premarital sex is almost universal and not considered 'wrong' and women frequently pursue their professions whilst the men stay at home looking after the children, being I suppose 'unmanly'.
Mod
Guys, I think you are misunderstanding Bill! I also did, but I think the penny has dropped now.Bill, thank you for mentioning that bit about the letter killeth. This helps me to also see more clearly what Hardy was probably getting at.
Bill wrote:
Of course they really did think they were doing the right thing. Many of them did.
This is why St. Paul says "The Letter Killeth". And this is at the very beginning of this novel. Morality without love (or sensitivity to suffering) can kill in many different ways. This why although "The Letter Killeth, the Spirit giveth life".
I think Jude has some "spirit"--as demonstrated by his wanting to save the birds and the pigs. He didn't have enough "letter" which would have told him to be a man and not let his wife manage their livelihood by butchering the hog----or to do his job and not let those birds eat.
Another hug for you Bill, but I must point out something to you..- Jude did in fact kill the pig himself - he insisted! He didn't enjoy doing it, and he did it fast, and insisted on doing it fast, which his wife severely scolded him for, but he did do it... :)
Anyway, I think what Bill says that Hardy says, (and I agree) is that one should rather listen to your inner conscience than written down law- or to fit in with the quotation - than to follow the letter of the law.
Deborah wrote: " not only a concern for working women, but for married women as well......"Certainly they were Deborah but I was referencing the work of the Josephine Butler Society in particular - their remit could not extend to married women because they were under the protection of their husbands who would not let them attend clinics etc.
Moral codes can also be developed by....
Great post Deborah, very insightful.
MadgeUK wrote: "LOL. Are you describing me here Traveller??:D:D"My esteem for you is boundless, Madge. Seriously, in the short time that I have had contact with you, I have gained some serious respect for you.
..so the short answer to that question is: "No, I was not thinking of you..." :D
Bill wrote: But transport them back to the Victorian era--and they would not have been 'moral' according to that society. Thats all I'm saying.I have explained elsewhere that premarital sex was quite common, especially in rural communities, as long as a bloke married the girl he got pregnant, as Jude did. The text does not condemn Jude or Arabella for this. And Pillotson had urged Jude to be kind to birds. Nor would have it have been considered unmanly to let a wife have a trade like pig-killing, as Arabella had.
I am sorry but I find your judgements very harsh and they remind me of the problems which Hardy had with his Victorian public.
As Traveller said earlier, we are getting into hot water and as an atheist I am finding the discussion rather upsetting now. Atheists tend to get upset when they are being told that only Christian 'laws' make moral people.
Traveller wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "LOL. Are you describing me here Traveller??:D:D"My esteem for you is boundless, Madge. Seriously, in the short time that I have had contact with you, I have gained some serious..."
Gee thanks Traveller:). I was only teasing!!:O I rather fancy the idea of a pince-nez!
but I must point out something to you..- Jude did in fact kill the pig himself - he insisted!And it was Arabella whose trade was killing pigs - not Jude's. I think that anyone not in that trade, male or female, would have felt revulsion at what he had to do.
Madge wrote:As Traveller said earlier, we are getting into hot water and as an atheist I am finding the discussion rather upsetting now. Atheists tend to get upset when they are being told that only Christian 'laws' make moral people. Madge, no - that is the very reason I became upset at first, but slow down, - Bill is actually on our side!
(Ok, I'm not an Atheist, just an Agnostic, but still, I mean in principle)
Just look carefully at the quote I had made of what he said. Bill is using the word 'morals' not in the punitive, value-judgemental sense that the self-righteous tend to use; - he is actually saying that "morals" can be a vile thing, depending on what your point of view is.
His use of the word 'morals' had also tripped me up at first, but when he patiently kept on explaining, I started to see what he had really meant. :)
MadgeUK wrote: "t also pins down the fact that morality is not dependent upon religion but upon a system of ethics going back to the dawn of recorded time,"That's a nice speculation, but as a sociological historian, you are certainly aware that there is no record of any society which has developed morality independent of religion. Nor is thee any evidence of individuals independently developing morality without starting by growing up in a society with a well established system of religious morality in place.
Of course, one can theorize anything one wants to, but the facts on the ground are that so far as historical research has found, neither has ever happened.
Bill wrote:in which he went against his spirit and 'did the right thing' according to cultural norms. .."Again you are making a moral judgement Bill - As a non pig farmer Jude would not have been expected 'culturally' to kill or bleed a pig, which Arabella had 'past experience' in doing, and in any case they had called in a pig-killer (who didn't turn up) because it was a big pig. If anything he did the wrong thing because by insisting, as an 'amateur', on killing it, he did it badly and the beast suffered. His 'sensitivity' in this instance was in trying to help with something he knew nothing about.
Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "t also pins down the fact that morality is not dependent upon religion but upon a system of ethics going back to the dawn of recorded time,"That's a nice speculation..."
To some extent it depends upon what you call religion. The most primitive pagan societies have moral codes - even cannibals and some would not call their rituals a religion. In any case I disagree because I believe that that morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and nothing to do with religion. Even chimpanzees are thought to have moral codes.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...
Traveller wrote:His use of the word 'morals' had also tripped me up at first, but when he patiently kept on explaining, I started to see what he had really meant. :)Thanks for explaining. I did admit that I often do not understand Bill and I do find him to be 'moralistic', rightly or wrongly. All that stuff about the Letter and Laws threw me. I think I had better go to bed.
MadgeUK wrote: "Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "t also pins down the fact that morality is not dependent upon religion but upon a system of ethics going back to the dawn of recorded time,"That's a nice speculat..."
Regardless of whether one argues that morality/ethics co-evolved as we evolved and with religion, at this point, and in the Victorian Age as well so far as I can tell, the morality is not considered dependent on religion. Regardless of whether the chicken or the egg came first, the reality that they both exist in the world is unquestionable. The same applies to religion and ethics.
Bill: Sorry but I find this judgemental: 'he went against his spirit and 'did the right thing' according to cultural norms'. As I said I really must go to bed.
MadgeUK wrote: "To some extent it depends upon what you call religion. The most primitive pagan societies have moral codes - even cannibals and some would not call their rituals a religion.."What specific societies are you thinking about where there is no concept of an external being or power which is worshiped or otherwise addressed to ward off evil or provide good, which I think off the cuff is a fairly reasonable definition of religion?
Denae wrote: "in the Victorian Age as well so far as I can tell, the morality is not considered dependent on religion"It doesn't need to be. Once a religion-based morality is encoded into a society, you can take out the religious aspect but the reality still is that it arose from religious belief.
Denying God but adopting religious morality (which is the basis of virtually all Western law and culture) is like speaking English but denying that there ever was an Anglo-Frisian language because we no longer speak or need it.
MadgeUK wrote: And it was Arabella whose trade was killing pigs - not Jude's. I think that anyone not in that trade, ..."In truth neither Arabella nor Jude were in the "pig killing" trade, while Arabella came from a family which farmed pigs, it was not the original intent to do the actual butchering themselves.
It should be recalled that they had initially hired a professional butcher to kill the pig, but they became worried that he would not show up because he was late, and thus it would out of the feeling of desperation which Arabella had that they decided they must do it themselves.
But while Arabella did grow up around pigs and had more knowledge of how things should be done, initially it was not intended to be the task of either one of them.
Once a religion-based morality is encoded into a society, you can take out the religious aspect but the reality still is that it arose from religious belief.The why do the higher primates have it?
Denying God but adopting religious morality...
We do not 'adopt' morality, religious or otherwise, it comes with our mother's milk whether we like it or not. It evolved. Part of what Jung called our 'collective unconscious' then reinforced by many other things which happen to us. Helped along by religions but not founded by them.
I know you are a lawyer but my understanding of the foundation of our Common Law is that it is grounded in Roman Law. 'One of the first and throughout its history one of the most significant treatises of the common law, Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England), was heavily influenced by the division of the law in Justinian’s Institutes. The impact of Roman law had decreased sharply after the age of Bracton, but the Roman divisions of actions into in rem and in personam used by Bracton had a lasting effect and laid the groundwork for a return of Roman law structural concepts in the 18th and 19th centuries.'
I did not know that American law differed so widely from this?
Additionally British common law is based on custom and precedent dating back to the 12C, during the reign of Henry II. The 'common law' was the law that emerged as 'common' throughout the realm, as the king's judges (not priests) followed each other's decisions to create a unified common law throughout England. The doctrine of precedent developed during the 12th and 13th centuries, as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. (The Parliamentary Archives in the House of Lords holds appeal cases and other records of the House of Lords acting in its judicial capacity, dating from 1621, scrolls and scrolls of them, all tied up in the traditional red tape.)
(This probably ought to be discussed in the Cafe since it is a long way off topic.)
Sorry to press you on it. But I feel that when a straw man is attributed to myself (or anyone else) in these forums, it tends to be taken up as something I actually said and I spend a lot of time fielding responses to something I didn't say. Seems like a waste of time.I am sorry Bill - I really do have difficulty in understanding you at times. My fault.
Silver wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: And it was Arabella whose trade was killing pigs - not Jude's. I think that anyone not in that trade, ..."In truth neither Arabella nor Jude were in the "pig killing" trade, whil..."
Thanks Silver. As Arabella was first described with a group of other girls washing 'chitterlings' (pig's intestines) I had assumed that she was familiar with the trade but you are right, it was intended that a professional pig-killer should help them. It was also stated that the reason they got a pig to help with their finances was because Arabella had 'past experience' so this again made me think she would have killed a pig before but maybe not - perhaps they were both 'amateurs'! Poor pig!:(
I like Bill's word 'outsourcing' for it!
Bill wrote: "Silver wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: And it was Arabella whose trade was killing pigs - not Jude's. I think that anyone not in that trade, ..."In truth neither Arabella nor Jude were in the "pig killing..."
I'm not sure that a single pig counts as being in the pig farming business.
MadgeUK wrote: "I find this judgemental: 'he went against his spirit and 'did the right thing' according to cultural norms'."How is that judgmental? He didn't say whether he thought it was the right thing, but that it was the right thing according to cultureal norms.
If that's judgmental, then such statements as "Everyman's post is a good post according to Goodreads norms," or "he said 'excuse me' because that's what polite people do in such a situation" are judgmental statements. I don't see them as that, but maybe you do.
And, of course, your saying that you think his post was judgmental was itself judgmental, and my post saying that your post was judgmental was judgmental, and . . .
Personally, I give "judgmental" a narrower meaning than that.
MadgeUK wrote: "The why do the higher primates have it?."
I don't agree that they do. Acting by instinct is not acting morally. Nor do we know that they don't have religion.
MadgeUK wrote: "I know you are a lawyer but my understanding of the foundation of our Common Law is that it is grounded in Roman Law"So? I never said "Christian" but "religious." Certainly the Romans had moral religious precepts which guided their development of law.
But yes, we're getting far afield from Jude.
I don't agree that they do.There has been a great deal of research to the contrary if you care to seek it out.
I never said "Christian" but "religious.
Good sidestep! We were discussing the Christian religion I believe:).
MadgeUK wrote: "Good sidestep! We were discussing the C..."I certainly wasn't discussing only the Christian religion. Obviously religions long before Christianity had developed moral codes and standards. When I said that we know of no society that has ever established a moral or ethical code outside of religion, I thought it was clear that I was going back far beyond the birth of Christ.
MadgeUK wrote: "There has been a great deal of research to the contrary if you care to seek it out. ."I'm aware of it. It is highly anthropomorphic and assumes that behaviors which are similar to what humans consider conscious moral thinking are also conscious moral thinking on the art of animals. An extraordinary leap. We have no idea what is going on animal brains. I know that many people think they know when their pets are laughing or crying, but the assumption that this has anything in relationship to human laughter or crying is, despite the anger some pet lovers will heap on me for saying this, wishful thinking.
It is highly anthropomorphic...We have no idea what is going on animal brains..,'It is highly scientific and similar testing has been done to that that done on children. We know much more about their language too. Animal behaviourists are very sophisticated in their techniques these days. Just as the 'hard wiring' of the human brain can now be investigated, so can the hard wiring of primates. Nothing to do with the anthromorphic interpretations we make about our pets. Some interesting tests are detailed here:
http://discovermagazine.com/2000/feb/...
(I realise these ideas are controversial and that many believe that God is the author of moral law, a la C S Lewis but a significant number of scientists belief that morality is part of our evolutionary development, a development which we share with primates.)
MadgeUK wrote: "Silver wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: And it was Arabella whose trade was killing pigs - not Jude's. I think that anyone not in that trade, ..."In truth neither Arabella nor Jude were in the "pig killing..."
When the butcher finally did arrive after the fact, I thought he made some remark to them about how they did a pretty good job for being armatures, or something along those same lines.
Yes he did but I guess he didn't care much about the suffering of the pig!
Everyman wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "The why do the higher primates have it?."
I don't agree that they do. Acting by instinct is not acting morally. Nor do we know that they don't have religion."
Eman, if two children wash up on an island a la Blue Lagoon, and they help one another to survive, and mate when older, and have a child, and care for that child; how is the instinctual 'caring' that they display not moral?
Caring for one another, for those in your 'clan', as well as for yourself is the basis of morality for all humans, and in fact the basis of morality for all cultures and religions.
God is there in all cultures because humans are self-conscious and need to explore the "why" of things. God or gods is a good answer for the why of things, and usually fits in well with the particular culture's paradigm of the world and reality.
I am not against religion per se, but I am against the clinging on to ancient religions and ideologies just because you father's father's father's etc. father did, and so you feel that you should too, because that's what you were taught as a little child, and you were taught never to question these ideologies.
I think Bill has broached a very important point with his "the letter vs the spirit."
I think that "the letter" represents the construct “ideology” whereas “spirit” represents instinct.
Being a bit of a romantic and idealist myself, I completely understand how ideals and ideologies can run away with a young person. Following human instinct seems “base” to many and is rejected as such. But is instinct really so bad? After all, it has served humanity admirably for hundreds of thousands of years. Psychologically normal people instinctively know what is right and wrong. I was never ‘taught’ in any express way that to kill is ‘bad’, in fact, there was no moratorium on the killing of, say birds – and yet to see creatures suffering and or dying has always instinctively upset me, even as a child.
If psychologically normal humans did not instinctively feel qualms in killing, why do so many men, who are hardwired to kill for survival, feel extremely uncomfortable with the death at their own hands of their opponents in war? (When it is done at close quarters and they have to look the person they were killing in the eye while the other is dying). ..and this even though they very well know that in war it is a “you or I” situation, and even if they believe that “God is on our side”.
In fact, people- even men, have to be “trained to kill”. They have to be indoctrinated that it is quite all right to skewer another human being like a pig on the spit.
..and this is where ideology comes in. If we thus skewer people “in the name of the Fatherland” or “for the Queen” or “for God and country”, it becomes a lot easier, if we are infused with ideological zeal.
It becomes much easier to commit genocide, to torture and kill thousands of men, women, children and even little babies, if “God commanded it, because they are unrighteous”.
This is why "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life". If we were to truly listen to that little voice within us, we already know what is “right’ and “wrong” (from a judgemental perspective) or “what is best for our species” from a rational perspective. Often, “the letter” will be true to that little voice, because these laws were after all usually made up by mystics and religious leaders for what they truly believed was “for the benefit of the people”. Unfortunately, such ideologies are always open to abuse by power-seekers who make use of these ideologies to strengthen their own seat of power.
I often feel very sad that such a beautiful teaching such as that of Jesus Christ has been adulterated and mis-used by so many who used it as an instrument to gain power.
Likewise, thinkers like Karl Marx were I believe, sincere, and wanted the good of the people, as did many of the instigators of the Russian Revolution…- but just look what those seeking personal power did with this seemingly “fair” ideology.
This is what I understand under: "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life". Ideologies killeth when they are not tempered by the spirit of love and compassion, and by that sense of morality that is hardwired into the human genetic makeup.
Traveller wrote: I often feel very sad that such a beautiful teaching such as that of Jesus Christ...There is nothing which JC taught that does not appear in other earlier teachings though. IMO the 'spirit' which works against wicked ideologies is the altruism of humankind, altruism for which we are 'hard wired' but which far too often we ignore.
http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/news/al...
Professor Rudolph Rummel argues 'that there is a relation between political power and democide. Political mass murder grows increasingly common as political power becomes unconstrained. At the other end of the scale, where power is diffuse, checked, and balanced, political violence is a rarity. The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom.' He concludes: 'Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.' (Power Kills 1997.) In other words, it is not the actual ideologies which are necessarily wrong but the autocratic, dictatorial way they are administered. In democracies they can be tempered by what we call 'checks and balances' and by being able to vote our rulers out if they go too far - by adhering to the 'spirit of democracy'.
One of the problems which Hardy (and Jude) faced was the power of the Victorian church, which dictated how people were to live their lives, which dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's:-
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
GOD made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.
(Verse from the 1848 hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful, with the hymn book emphasis.)
The 'estate' of sex was ordered, the 'estate' of women was ordered' etc and Hardy thought it was about time there was another vote:).
http://learnonline.splinder.com/post/...
Good heavens, Madge, do you ever sleep? ^o^
MadgeUK wrote: "Traveller wrote: I often feel very sad that such a beautiful teaching such as that of Jesus Christ...There is nothing which JC taught that does not appear in other earlier teachings though. IMO t..."
In any case, I like your post, and feel it dovetails nicely into mine. ^_^
...but I still like JC. I always have, much as I have always abhorred the Old Testament, and still do.
LOL. Yes JC seems to have been an OK guy:). I have had a very bad night - didn't sleep at all. I am now going to spend the afternoon in bed.
I noticed you seem to have been posting with little pause, so have a good snooze, Madge! :-)Even older bones need their rest, right:? ;)
Traveller wrote: "Eman, if two children wash up on an island a la Blue Lagoon, and they help one another to survive, and mate when older, and have a child, and care for that child; how is the instinctual 'caring' that they display not moral? "That's an excellent question getting to an essential question about morality. Must a decision or act, to be considered moral, be consciously so, or can we just look at the act independent of the mental state (if any) of the actor and call it moral?
If a person takes a swing at my face but holds back at the last moment because she thinks it would be morally wrong to do so, I think we both agree that that is a moral act. But assume that she holds back at the last moment because she realizes that she just paid $150 to get false nails glued on to her fingers and hand painted, and if she hits me she will ruin that work. It's the same act of holding back, it looks exactly the same to an external observer, but in the second case would you say that she was acting morally?
This is relevant to Jude because if I am correct that acts are only moral if they are intentionally so, then we have to ask whether his reluctance to kill the pig was moral, or just physical repugnance at touching this gross animal?
that acts are only moral if they are intentionally soThis depends on your p.o.v. and which philosopher you are going along with. Jude's reluctance could be both moral and a physical repugnance. He may have cared about the pig's distress and therefore not wanted to kill it but also had a repugnance about killing a pig or killing in general. Both cases could be held as moral although I dare say that in a court of law you could argue it around the houses and get paid a fortune for it!! But we are not in a court of law here:).
From Wikipedia (I am feeling very tired/lazy today because I slept badly last night!)
'Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).' [Nothing about intention here.]
'Morality has two principal meanings:
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics. [Nothing about intention here.)
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. [This could be defined as 'intention'.] This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral."'
Everyman wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Eman, if two children wash up on an island a la Blue Lagoon, and they help one another to survive, and mate when older, and have a child, and care for that child; how is the insti..."The whole argument, if you will remember in detail, between Jude and Arabella was that Jude wanted to kill the pig quickly so as to have it suffer less, and Arabella wanted to just lightly prick the vein so that the pig would slowly bleed to death, and thus have the dying process prolonged, so that the meat would have less blood, and there would be more blood to make pudding out of. (Very unhealthy practice, those puddings, btw, especially when using pig's blood - but that is OT)
As to your example, I do see your basic point, although I think that your example is too simplistic to really describe the full problem of adressing at exactly which point an action becomes a moral one.
'Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).' [Nothing about intention here.] um.. -actually it does have something about intention there, but..- to counter Eman's assertion that moral behaviour only started with religion - keep in mind that religion was only invented quite recently in human history, and human behaviour itself had not changed much since before religion started. (Or it did - but it developed slowly and independently of religion).
That is to say, although we supposedly still follow the same religion as Abraham (founding father of Jewdom) did, a lot of what we find in the OT is pretty repugnant to modern sensibilities. This is reflected in Jesus Christ trying to update the old beliefs and teachings to a more human, less severe, more fair and compassionate stance.
Ancient religions firstly evolved as a paradigm to explain the fact that we find ourselves here on earth where we do, (creation myths), and only later started touching on ethics as it became more sophisticated.
If you want to use the Judaic Bible or Old Testament as a case in point, note that first you have Genesis, the typical creation myth, then you have basic rules - the 10 commandments and fire and brimstone admonitions for people to adore Jehova, and only with the New Testament do we start getting a bit more sophisticated about ethical and moral problems.
Many religions didn't even develop this far - they remained in their ancient form of gods playing around with the elements and human's fate (or titans with both the elements and the gods :P ).
Religion is an excellent vessel to carry moral ideologies within them, but I urge you to note that not all religions impart moral lessons. (or "Thou Shalt and Thou Shalt Nots)
Traveller wrote: "As to your example, I do see your basic point, although I think that your example is too simplistic to really describe the full problem of adressing at exactly which point an action becomes a moral one. ."Yes, it was simplistic, but it was meant simply to present my view that morality necessarily involves consideration of the intent of the individual, not merely the bare act. As you say, a full discussion would require trying to identify the point at which an act which appears from the outside to be moral actually qualifies as moral when viewed from the intentionality of the actor. But that's a question that should be addressed elsewhere, if at all, not here in the Jude thread, which has already strayed several times fairly far from Jude.
Traveller wrote: "Ancient religions were firstly invented to explain the fact that we find ourself where we do, (creation myths),"Actually, we don't know why religion initially developed in non-literate cultures. Lots of speculation (including that it was brought to us by alien visitors), but no knowledge.
Eman, I'll find you somewhere, sometime in the Philosophy forum, where I imagine we can debate these issues further to our hearts content. Like you say, let's go back to the hapless Jude and see what his further adventures turn out to be. :)
Nice chatting, but straying too far OT.
Hello Everyone--I've just finished reading Part I of the novel, and as a newcomer to the group, I've read the first (50 or so?) posts and have skimmed the rest. There are such insightful and divergent comments--it will take me more time than I have right now to absorb them all. A few descriptions of Jude have stayed with me throughout reading this first part--"This weakness of character as it might be called, suggested that he was the sort of man who was born to ache a good deal before the fall of the curtain upon his unnecessary life should signify that all was well with him again."
and of Jude's thoughts,
"Growing up brought responsibilities, he found. Events did not rhyme quite as he had thought. Nature's logic was too horrid for him to care for. That mercy towards one set of creatures was cruelty toward another sickened his sense of harmony...."
Jude's sensibilities set him at odds with those around him, and his "weakness," whether it's his tenderness towards the rooks or yielding to his impulses before weighing their implications, seems to mark him and determine his future. When he meets Arabella, his sharp attraction to her overrides his own knowledge and logic--and he falls into marriage with her. He "keeps up a belief" in her, even admitting to himself that his "idea of her was the thing of most consequence, not Arabella herself...." Theirs must have been the shortest "honeymoon" ever! His disillusionment with Arabella--not the 'ideal Arabella'--occurs on their wedding night when she unhooks her hairpiece. What he had expected and what he thought was "natural," was artifice, and soon after, he learns that the "natural course of things," or Arabella's pregnancy was likely a ploy, as well.
All of those events made me think back to that early description of Jude--a boy whose mercy for rooks awarded him with punishment. And at the end of Part I, their marriage separation happened too easily for it to be trusted.
I've read others' posts about Jude's isolation and loneliness. He seems to be a lone figure in an indifferent environment, whether in the social or in the natural environment. Reading this first part of the novel reminds me of one of Hardy's poems named "Hap."
On to reading Part Two.
The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910
Books mentioned in this topic
The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (other topics)Lark Rise to Candleford (other topics)
Cranford (other topics)
Tess of the D’Urbervilles (other topics)
Thomas Hardy: A Biography Revisited (other topics)
More...
The same reason that alienation from anything makes whatever you are alienated from less in..."
I very strongly disagree with this. I feel, and felt when I was much younger, very alienated from the society and system in which I was raised, but those things had a great influence on me. The fact that I disagree with that system of belief and choices does not mean they had any less impact on me than if I did agree with them. It is possible they had more because I did not take them at face value. I eventually questioned and rejected them, but they had a profound impact on who I am.
Additionally, from where does the idea that alienation makes a person somehow better or wiser come? It is one I hear a lot from various quarters and I am not entirely comfortable with it. There is some degree of martyrdom to it. How often do you hear it being expressed by someone who does not claim to be that person? There are people who do not feel that alienation from society, although I think there is some area in which everyone does, and honestly I hear far less of this concept from them. (I am by no means trying to exclude myself from that group which takes perverse pride in being "different" from others. I am just questioning the premise.)