Sunday, October 11, 2009
blog post #4
One question that I want to pose before we go on is can one be good and still do bad things? The conditions in the city wouldn’t allow Shen Teh to do the right things but she was still considered a good person. The circumstances in the city were the cause for why she did bad things. It wasn’t her fault, the circumstances and the economy is to blame for her wrong doing. If people were given a chance like Shen Teh had got from the gods they would be able to do good things like Shen Teh did when she bought the tobacco shop on the first paragraph on page 13. When an economy has a capitalist view the businesses have the freedom to do what is good and don’t have restrictions such as other people telling them what to do and what to believe. The individuality allows people the freedom to do what is right. I guess for the most part however, in order to be a good person it seems that you may have to live in poverty versus working your way up the corporate ladder. As you climb the corporate ladder it seems to get harder and harder to maintain “goodness”. We see that as she goes on in the corporate world she needs to compromise what is right in order to stay afloat. However, somehow in the end she still remains good. It seems to me it is implied in the book that the good is within the heart and comes from the heart rather than from the action itself. She knew what she had done wrong and wasn’t proud of it. This attitude of her heart made her good in the eyes of the gods. If this is truly the case then being good can happen anywhere despite how hard it is. Is goodness truly found within the heart? Or is our heart selfish and greedy? Or both?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really like the question you asked (can one be good and still do bad things?), and I think the answer is yes. Like you said, even if one is the nicest, most good-hearted person for miles, certain circumstances (like those in the capitalist society described in the book) can make it impossible to be good 100% of the time. One needs to take care of oneself and survive physically, mentally, and financially. Sometimes the only way to do that is to break a few rules, but I do not think this necessarily makes one a bad person. I agree with the "Robinhood" approach; if one is hungry and they take food from a person/establishment that can afford it, and they only take what they need to live, I do not think this makes them a bad person. In the beginning of the book, Shen Teh sold her body to men for money. If she did not do this, she wouldn't be able to make enough money to pay the rent and she would have been thrown out on the street. While both of these things (stealing and prostitution) are viewed by society as bad, they may be necessary for a person to survive, and because of that, I do not think it makes that person bad.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is possible to be good and do “bad” things, because it’s all based upon a personal opinion about what it is to be good in the first place, and what is deemed bad as well. I don’t think a person should be considered bad simply because they aren’t as selfless as Shen Teh was at the beginning of the play. Some of the nicest people in the world, people that would never intentionally hurt another human being, have never volunteered, donated money, etc. Giving is just one aspect of being a “good” person. This of course goes against the side I had to support, that it is impossible to be good a capitalist society…but I don’t really agree with the side I had to support.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree----just because some does something that society deems as 'bad' does not make them a bad person. I believe it is your reasoning behind your actions that deem whether you are 'good' or 'bad.' Because, it could be flipped as well. A 'bad' person could do something that society would deem as good---but, they have bad intentions behind their action. sooo, they are not good just because of their good action, are they?
ReplyDeleteI think it has much more to do with that person's heart and the intent behind their action.
I think that this whole argument is made with a false premise that these Gods dictate an absolute good and bad. To give an example of why these absolutisms are incorrect, lets take a look at greed. As far as the gods in this book are concerned a greedy person is a bad person. I would disagree. A person who is motivated by greed would probably succeed in a capitalistic economy. But if greed is his only "fault" and he breaks no laws, does not take from others wrongfully, is not decietfull, etc then the only real result of being greedy is that this person strives to have more. A person like that who got into business would probably build up a successful business that brought him in lots of money. In doing so however he would undoubtedly create more jobs and a cheaper product. In a purely capitalistic economy that is driven by demand the only way for a business to do well is to outperform competition. This ends up creating lower cost, higher quality items, which in turn benefits everyone who is consuming. All of this said, is a greedy person really a bad person? I think not.
ReplyDelete