For Tuesday we read Kafka’s “Before the Law,” and our responses to it were extremely varied even though we only discussed it briefly before launching into the larger topic of “what is ethics?” However, I kept thinking about the essay even after we moved on, and I figured my interest would be best converted into a blog post.
We discussed the power that the man gave to the gatekeeper, and therefore the law, by waiting at the gate and fearing the consequences. But my thoughts on the essay extend beyond that, and tie into the three defining forces behind ethical theory: motive, action, and consequence. During our discussion, we talked about obedience to the law and to ethical/moral principles, which reminded me of something Dr. J talks about a lot – lazy relativism. Lazy relativism is what happens when a person says, “I think this, and you think that, so we’ll just agree to disagree.” You cheapen and undermine your own beliefs by being a lazy relativist. I initially thought the man was a sort of “lazy moralist.” He waited at the gate until his death, only to find out moments before he died that the gate was for him and him alone this whole time. Wouldn’t that mean that he was the only one with the power to pass through it? That’s not really the point, but rather the man obeyed because he was told to – he assumed that it was the moral, right thing to do. He initially questioned it, but eventually became complacent and gave up. This complacency prompted me to consider the man as a “lazy moralist” – I was told to wait, and if I’m trying to get to the law, this must be the right thing to do.
On the other hand, Doctor J brought to my attention that the man could be considered an extreme moralist – he subjected his own free will and desire for what he believed was the morally right action. He wasn’t simply lazy and did what he was told, but rather made getting to the law his sole objective in life. Even further, one could argue that the man’s resolve to follow his instructions may even make him the law – law succeeds because the people involved respect and uphold it. I think there is merit in this perspective, but the complacency I mentioned above still complicates this second notion for me. The man at the end of the story seems defeated, resigned to his fate, as opposed to how he began – as a man on a mission, in search of the law. The last line of the essay is especially troubling: “Here no one else can gain entry, since this entrance was assigned only to you. I’m going to close it now” (Kafka “Before the Law”). Perhaps if the man had not been a lazy moralist and pushed for entrance into his own gate, he would have succeeded. But his complacency and diminished willingness to fight prevented that and gave power to the gatekeeper and the “law” beyond it. Initially he thinks that “the law should always be accessible for everyone,” but gives up his right to access once the gatekeeper intimidates him and he decides to wait (Kafka “Before the Law”). I think this is the moment he becomes a “lazy moralist” and waits until his death because he has effectively given up his will or desire to act against what he accepted as “morally right” action.
This essay was really challenging, so I’m sure that people will probably disagree with what I have said here, but this idea really stuck with me. Is there a fine line between being a committed extremist and obediently lazy?
