There's been good discussion over the concept of man being inherently good, and it sparked a thought of mine. We accept the phrase innocence of a child as easily as we welcome air into our lungs. We don't question it. They don't know any better.
If the two ideas are concurrent, then man's goodness is conditional with a child's innocence. Here's my question: is a child of pure innocence when it kills small animals for fun (don't laugh, this is much more common than one would think, and only an example); not because they are necessarily of evil presence, but because they know no better? Does the child's "innocence" cancel the evil of murder and inhuman slaughter?
This question is not of my opinion, one way or the other. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
this is a very interesting question. it really makes one think...
growing up in a religious household, i was raised to think that a sin is a sin, regardless of intent.
ok, i have a weird comparison but just go with me on this...at our school, rules on sexual harassment are pretty harsh. if anyone is being made to feel uncomfortable, the guilty party is generally punished whether they were "joking around" or not.
if we apply that idea into this question, it becomes that anyone that breaks a commandment should be said to have sinned.
having said all that, in my rebellious teenage fashion, i've come to believe just the opposite. (sorry mommy) i think that indiscretions committed without prior knowledge of "right and wrong" should be forgiven.
i know there's the outstanding idea of "ignorance of the law is no excuse". well pardon my french, but screw that. until someone tells me i can't do something, i'm going to assume i can. :)
Along with Booradley, I have also grown up in a religious household. Im catholic so I've always believed that everyones born with original sin cause the whole adam and eve thing. So any way I guess I think that if they aren't baptised they still have the original sin with them and so they're not technically pure and innocent?? And kids are always curious about things and they're always tempted to try new things... And that's all I got!
first i want to know what child went around thinking that killing small animals was okay, i mean other than, like, smushing bugs or something. I guess that killing things (other than spiders) has always just been instinctually "bad" to me, so when kids do something like that, i would probably assume that they are already be having some thoughts that the rest of the world probably wouldn't be too comfortable with them having. Killing small animals as a child is actually on the list of ten things that most serial killers have in common, so i guess i really don't find ignorance any kind of excuse for a child old enough to have a conscience. I guess the hard part of that is deciding how old you are when you start determining the difference between right and wrong. But born innocent? Yes... i think. Its the choices we make later that decide whether or not we are good.
I would have never of thought of that myself. As a child though they dont know better. They cant determine between good and evil as being a parent its a job they take on to help push their kids in the right direction. To hopefully have them one day to make their own decisions. Parents help kids make right decisions till they are at the point to make their own!
Along with Booradley and red lobster I have also grown up in a religious household. Im catholic so I've always believed that everyones born with original sin cause the whole adam and eve thing.I always grew that if you did not get baptized when you were little that you carried that sin. And with them carrying the sin still the can not be how they want to be pure.
What would you define as being a child. Is it a difference in age, mentalilty, or thoughts?
With a child killing small animals, that could be a sign that they have grown past a certain stage and can no longer be rightfully considered a child. However, they are still young so if the act is commited with out malice how can they be called evil. Without an understanding of death how can anyone truly know what is happening when they abuse an animal.
However, considering a child inherently evil for something ages past never made sense to me, I always thought of the original sin as an opening into our lives of sinful choices.
I remember in The Golden Comapss and the trilogy it belonged to there was much talk about the original sin. In the worlds beyond that of the main character and of Earth as we know it, that first act seemed to open the world to the beings. So was the first sin a condeming of a race or was it the loss of the garden?
Interesting conversation you have going. Since we're reading Grendel I'm going to throw in that perspective (not necessarily mine but one I can understand comes to some people). Grendel starts out a good little monster but recognizes the evil that men do once he starts observing them. In turn, he feels (more than sees or understands -- I think it's more emotional than intellectual even though he intellectualizes everything and still is not sure what to believe and who is telling the truth) that life is futile, brutal and unfair. Goodness is meaningless to him in a world which rewards it with destruction. At the same time, he cannot help but recognize (again emotionally more than intellectually) the beauty around him: art, music, poetry, and certain people. Therefore, his role as "Wrecker" and "Destroyer" which he thought might give him meaning becomes just as absurd. The existential dilemma. We humans are emotional beings who feel inspired and inclines to do both good and evil. Doing the right thing has to, in my opinion, be informed by an intellectual AND emotional recognition of the consequences of our actions. Obviously, children often lack one or the other or both to varying degrees, but I think, like Grendel, even small children have an inkling of what is right and wrong. I'm not a relativist but it just seems like common sense to say that if someone doesn't understand what they're doing is wrong, then blame is mitigated. Now, the trick is knowing how much someone actually understands and how much they're denying or even pretending not too..... :)
Post a Comment