Relation to Black Swan

Jason Taylor, when asked this question, would respond no, it is not necessary to sacrifice morals for the sake of survival. Jason grows up is an ever changing world, where even his family is unstable. He has no solid foundation to retreat to in times of hardship, as his cutthroat hierarchal school atmosphere and crumbling family only add to the strife that he undergoes as a child. The only thing that really remains stagnant for Jason is his sense of morality. Stephen often sacrifices reputation so he can remain true to his morals. Doing so is extremely harmful to his school experience, as not doing the "cool" things leaves him with few friends and many enemies. But as the book progresses, Jason observes his morally corrupt peers fall from their position of popularity and realizes that he is better off. His few friends are true and loyal, his conscience is clear, and his heart is pure. The sense of morality that Jason develops becomes who his is; without this he would be lost. If Jason had sacrificed his morality to be popular, he might not be immediately aware of the mistake he made, but with time he would realize that he discarded the only thing in his life that makes sense.

Relation to Portrait

If Stephen were asked my question, he would probably say yes, it is necessary to throw out morals and ethics for the sake of survival. But in Stephen's experience, he has not had to do so for physical survival, but has forsaken morals to benefit his inner self. Stephen refuses a career with God, because he believes that this moral purity will interfere with his art. Religion and order are founded upon morals and ethics, which Stephen ultimately turns his back on to pursue an independent existence centered around art. Stephen even believes that the morals that society is based upon are detrimental to the health of the public. When observing the flock of birds from the library step, he compares their existence to mankind's. He claims that the birds' way of life is much more beautiful because it has not been tainted with "reason." This reason that human society exudes interferes with the simplicities of nature and the beautiful. Morals, ethics, religion, and reason all are negative qualities to Stephen, as he believes their obstruct his vision of imperfect beauty. To Stephen, following his passion of art is much more important than adhering to a code of morals that society has set, a society that Stephen himself feels alien to.

Crime and Punishment as it relates to my big question

As far as I can deduce, Dostoevsky answers this question with a yes. Sonya, for example, is forced to foresake her morals and obtain a yellow passport to help herself and her family survive. Her innocence is corrupted, yet she still obtains a sense of purity in that she is devout in beliefs and in her relationships to those she loves. It seems that one will do everything in their power to help ensure the comfort of those they love, even if it means the corruption of themselves. Raskolnikov, however, has trouble with this predicament. He is the recipient of many acts of kindness and compassion from those that love him, and he cannot understand the rationale involved in such decisions. He recognizes that he does not deserve their love, and is frustrated that they continue to stand by him even if it is not in their best interest in a moral-preserving sense or any other for that matter. This is completely irrational, and Rodya believes throughout most of the novel that most people should merely leave him alone. Yet he finally changes his perspective at the end of the novel when he finds love. I think that it is then that he understands why everyone has stood by him for so long, and loses some of his rationality for the sake of some sometimes-irrational emotions such as compassion. Sometimes people must sacrifice morals for those they love, for love is the binding glue that keeps us sane and preserves out will to continue living.

Henry IV Response

Upon further consideration of my big questions, it seems that I am asking this:
In the face of adversity, is it ever necessary to throw out morals and ethics for the sake of survival??


In Henry IV, Falstaff does just this in Act 5 of the play. He believes that honor is merely a word, and that it certainly shouldn't taint his determination for survival. With this frame of mind he plays dead to avoid death and claims killing Hotspur to further his own wellbeing. Falstaff's forsaken morals never stood a chance in adversity, let alone in times of peace and tranquility. But is Falstaff better off by doing this? His immoral lifestyle certainly keeps him alive, it exclusively looks after him and him alone, but it seems little else. Falstaff sacrifices respect and dignity by living in deceit and indulging himself in whatever way he deems fit, i.e. eating, drinking, and as a result lives seemingly eternally as a drunkard thief. This is certainly not an admirable way to live, Falstaff will always live looking up to those who support a lifestyle involving some sort of moral code. In fact, we last see Falstaff following Lancaster and the Prince, vowing to lie his way into fortune. Because he did not courageously fight he is not on the same level of companionship with the others, and is treated accordingly. Even when he seemingly convinces at least Lancaster about killing Hotspur, nothing changes; Falstaff exudes a sense of indecency that will follow him wherever he goes. This could be considered worse than the death he avoided. He simply does not speak the language of honor that the others abide by. So for all practical purposes, it was not necessary for Falstaff to act as he did, morals should be abided by in nearly every circumstance.

Big Question and Oedipus Rex

Oedipus Rex is revolved largely around one prophecy and how that prophecy is upheld. It becomes clear during the play that Oedipus has indeed fulfilled what the prophecy foretold, and focus changes to how characters will react to the uncovering of this truth. Do they forgive, forget, ignore, punish? Oedipus originally blasphemes the killer of the king and promises his punishment, evidently not one to forgive. When he learns that he is the killer, forgiveness isn't even considered. Oedipus presumes himself damned and hastily gouges out his eyes. Had he known forgiveness and been able to forgive himself, a happy ending might be possible.


How important is the power to forgive? Is it essential, or meaningless, or even impossible at times?