George,
Re your comments below:
> 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.
Oh come on! Spenser's whole professional life, first as a
cop, then as a PI, has been imposing a code on others.
Arguably he left official law enforcement and went private
just so he could impose HIS code, rather than society's, on
the criminal element.
> It does not follow [that an obligation to
refrain
from an act carries with it an obligation to prevent others
from doing it]. 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.)
There's a major difference between the ecclesiastical
obligations of a particular religious faith, and the
obligation not to commit murder. The first stems from the
greatest commandment, "You shall love the Lord your God with
your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind." The
second stems from the second greatest commandment, "Love thy
neighbor as thyself."
Loving God can take many different forms, because there are
many different ways of approaching one's relationship to God.
For some it's keeping Kosher. For others it's abstaining from
meat on Fridays. For others, it's avoiding books or music
that is regarded by their church elders as irreligious or
immoral.
But loving one's neighbor is a lot simpler. And, to the
extent that one recognizes that, in accordance with loving
one's neighbor, one should avoid murdering him, than one is
also recognizing that this prohibition against murder is
universal. Spenser, in making the decision not to kill the
thug himself, is recognizing this universal obligation. In
not preventing the murder, he is, in practically the same
moment, forsaking it for the sake of . . . I don't know. . .
friendship I suppose.
> 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 think it's clear that Parker wants the reader to absolve
Spenser of any responsibility for the murder, while at the
same time tying off a loose end. Having decided that it's
necessary to eliminate this character, he assigns the duty to
Hawk, this keeping his hero's hands clean. Thus, the reader
feels(at least Parker hopes) relief both that the potential
danger has been eradicated and that the honorable hero bears
no responsibility for the act.
My point was that it was nothing more than a sleigh-of-hand.
Though, in the heat of the moment, the reader might be
carried along into the belief that Spenser is innocent, in
fact he bears equal responsibility, morally, ethically, and,
certainly, legally for a killing that he's already decided is
morally and ethically unjustified.
And if Spenser's code obligates him to back up Hawk even if
Hawk is doing something that Spenser believes is morally
unacceptable, where does it end? "I'm personally against
rape, but I'm obliged to back up Hawk, so I'll do nothing
while he forces himself on this unwilling victim." Or "I'm
personally opposed to selling heroin to grammar school kids,
but I've got to back up Hawk, so I'll stand watch while he
conducts this drug deal in the schoolyard." Or "I've never
regarded child pornography as anything but a blight on
society, but Hawk thinks he can make a bundle on it, so I'll
go along with it."
Okay, everybody knows there are things one will stand for
from a friend, but not from anyone else, but murder's way
beyond the pale. And if you'll sit still for your friend's
committing a murder, I would argue that there's very little
you won't sit still for your friend doing.
> 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.
Maybe Parker THINKS that's Hawk's purpose. Maybe when they
were still respectful adversaries, that WAS Hawk's purpose.
But in the example you gave, allowing Spenser to violate his
code while appearing not to was EXACTLY what Hawk was there
to do.
JIM DOHERTY
__________________________________________________ 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