For what reason would a retarded person not have morals? An adult may have the intellect of an 8-year-old, but 8-year-olds know right and wrong, they just don't understand complex issues.+1
Hey,Not to sound ignorant but is that the story
I just read Sound and Fury and I actually hated it but whatever. Anyway, I am suppose to write a paper and I decided to write a paper on how Benjy (this "idiot" or retarded person) is not amoral. Where he does not just present an amoral report of sensations and reactions... but reading in the internet, almost everything points out that retarded people dont have morals. What do you think?
You have the ending a little bit wrong, however.
You have the ending a little bit wrong, however.
You clicked on this thread thinking it was about George Bush, however.
Both PLATO and ARISTOTLE associated human value with the ability to reason. They differentiated mankind from other living beings by the quality of the intellect. People who lacked the capacity to reason were considered barely human and therefore socially inferior... http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Re-So/Retardation.html
In this book, it showed that Benjy failed to do that. When schoolgirls walked past him, he moaned and chased them. As a result, he was castrated.
MOrality is defined as having distinction between right and wrong. In this book, it showed that Benjy failed to do that. When schoolgirls walked past him, he moaned and chased them. As a result, he was castrated.
Well, whether humans have a desire to be good (as the Greeks thought) or a desire to be evil (original sin,) morals are not a priori. Any perception of right and wrong an autistic person would have would be from their limited perspective (just as are perceptions of right and wrong are from our limited perspective); however, on whether or not an autistic person will choose right or wrong, I actually do not subscribe to the Christian idea of "original sin" but rather the Greek idea of "evil is ignorance."Ignorance in itself is not evil BUT it does breed evil.
Well they didnt really specify... He just did coz of his instincts... kind of like a male dog following its instincts when it sees a female dog. In that analysis, he is therefore seen as amoral.MOrality is defined as having distinction between right and wrong. In this book, it showed that Benjy failed to do that. When schoolgirls walked past him, he moaned and chased them. As a result, he was castrated.
Was that because he made a wrong moral choice, or because he responded to the compulsions of his body without understanding that there is a moral choice there, and that he was supposed to exercise restraint? I ask the question innocently, as it's been too long since I've read this to remember precise detail, but the point is that just because he acted that way does not automatically mean that it was the result of a wrong moral choice. At least, not without additional insight into his state of mind.
Much like the naturalist, the nihilist, and the new-ager, yes?Or the Socrate, the Platonist, and the existentialist.
Much like the naturalist, the nihilist, and the new-ager, yes?Or the Socrate, the Platonist, and the existentialist.
Or Bono (obviously.)Much like the naturalist, the nihilist, and the new-ager, yes?Or the Socrate, the Platonist, and the existentialist.
Or the Romulun, Sith, and Wood Elves.
Or Bono (obviously.)
Or Bono (obviously.)
Well the question isn't whether he's immoral but amoral.
Ah, back to deleting things that poke fun at you but don't break any rules, are we?
Well, if you're looking it in a way where he chose to chase the girls because he thought of the malice and pleasure then that is immoral, but if you look it in a way where he did it because of natural instincts, and not because he processed the consequences in his brain, then that would be amoral. I think Faulkner was gearing towards the latter.Well the question isn't whether he's immoral but amoral.
Yes, thank you, Daniel. Do you not think that's why I offered the question of whether is actions were an immoral action or an amoral action? Or why I posed the question at the very beginning of the thread about the distinction between understanding complex adult issues and having zero sense of morality?