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?
Jane,
ReplyDeleteAs you say, this was a challenging passage, and you do a great job of breaking it down. As you predicted, however, I disagree with you on a key point.
First, it doesn't seem to me that the man obeyed the gatekeeper because the man thought that it was the moral choice. Rather, the gatekeeper's imposing appearance and his warning to the man that the successive gatekeepers only grow more powerful and terrifying are what dissuade the man from entering the gate. It is fear that keeps the man "before the law." The man isn't a lazy moralist who thinks, "the gatekeeper has one moral opinion and I have another, so we'll just agree to disagree," because the man doesn't agree to disagree - he flat out agrees with the gatekeeper. The man may grumble to himself that the law should be open to everyone, but, as you point out, in the end he submits to the gatekeeper's authority.
In my interpretation the man is not attempting to merely gain knowledge of the law or to have his life judged by it. He wishes to gain the power of the law and the protection that this power brings with it - protection, indeed, from arbitrary tyrants like the gatekeeper. The man is essentially looking for the right granted to us by the 14th amendment: due process of the law for all citizens. This passage illustrates the collective action that is necessary to transform the law from a tool of those already in power into a tool for all. If everyone is given a separate "entrance" to the law, then the law is not objective or equal. This is nothing other than a strategy of "divide and conquer" on the part of the powerful.
Colin,
ReplyDeleteI understand the point you raised about the gatekeeper and the man. The intimidation of the man by the gatekeeper and his promise of progressing gatekeepers does dissuade him from entering the gate. And this was an issue I struggled with while writing my post - at what point, if any, is his fate at the gate sealed? Your point would indicate the intimidation, and I do agree. But I also think that maybe I wasn't clear enough in my presentation of a "lazy moralist." It's not quite the same as a lazy relativist - not "you have your morals and I have mine, so we'll agree to disagree" but rather "I will be completely obedient because I’ve been told this is the morally right action.” You are obedient to a set action/thought/belief because it’s just what your moral value dictates. Not necessarily because you agree with that action, but because you think to be moral you must commit that action. It’s kind of like people who go to church every Sunday because it’s what they have been instructed to do in order to be a “good, moral Christian,” but they don’t really enjoy it or even only “act Christian” on Sunday. Does that make sense?
I do agree strongly with your second point, about the man wanting to gain the protection of the law. In that case, the relationship between the man and the gatekeeper is hugely important, as you mentioned in your comment.
Ah, I see what you mean about lazy moralism now. I agreed with you more than I thought!
ReplyDeleteWith the direction in which you two's comments are going, I would suggest you read Thomas' post. I think (I am not certain), that he was pointing to the point you are trying to make about "lazy moralist" Jane (and yes your second comment was much clearer than your original post ... Thank you). Only I believe Thomas argues that in a way we, as Americans, are somewhat Lazy moralists for just following what we are told, just like Kafka did (Now I can be COMPLETELY wrong, about what he meant to say). The example he used was the TSA scanners installed in airports.
ReplyDeleteI think you guys should check his post, it could lead to some interesting conversations.
But to answer your question, going off of how you described both, and how In understood them, there is a difference between the two. For me, this is difference is knowledge. As a lazy moralist you simply follow orders because you are told that it is the moral thing to do. "It is morally wrong to kill someone, so you ought not do it." so you don't and when someone asks you "why don't you kill people" your response will be, "because it's morally wrong."
But for Extreme moralist, which sort of how I would refer to every single philosopher on our reading list, you follow orders because you KNOW that that's how it ought to be. So when asked "why don't you kill people?" you can say that "killing people is an act that will put my soul in disarray, and because I wish to be a healthy man with a healthy soul, guided by his reason, it would be morally wrong for me to do that." Or "It will not be in my best interest to kill someone, for i must later on suffer the consequences, and the guilt of that action. And becuse I do not wish to suffer any kind of pain, whether emotional, physical, or else, it would be morally wrong for me to kill someone." or any other reason you can come up with.
I don't know how clear that was, but I hope you we able to follow my train of thoughts.