What keeps people “in line”?
As soon as Moreau dies, the island creatures all go crazy. Their law of social norms is no longer upheld and social disaster ensues. This makes me wonder about the implications in today’s society. There are many things that we just don’t do because they are unacceptable. For example you would never pick your nose in public. It would be looked down upon and would be embarrassing. But if there weren’t that pressure, then I think that more people would do such things. In the same way, I think Dr. Moreau instilled a pressure and obligation in the creatures to act human. They are not to walk on all four or eat meat because it is socially unacceptable. If they do these things, not only will they be looked down upon, there is punishment. They must follow the law. But as soon as this pressure was released they no longer felt the obligation to up hold the law.
Obviously Wells is making a suggestion about the ill results of this type of science, but as these creatures are part human I can’t help to wonder if Wells is trying to say something about human nature itself. In Nazi Germany, there were no social pressures against human experimentation. So it was “ok” to horrid things to the Jewish people. Should the laws in the US be relaxed, would pandemonium follow leading to ultimate destruction? Is this in our nature to be viscous? Is our “nature” controlled by “the norm”? I am making to large of a jump here. I am interested to see what everyone else thinks. What keeps people "in line"? The rules or the morals behind the rules?
Obviously Wells is making a suggestion about the ill results of this type of science, but as these creatures are part human I can’t help to wonder if Wells is trying to say something about human nature itself. In Nazi Germany, there were no social pressures against human experimentation. So it was “ok” to horrid things to the Jewish people. Should the laws in the US be relaxed, would pandemonium follow leading to ultimate destruction? Is this in our nature to be viscous? Is our “nature” controlled by “the norm”? I am making to large of a jump here. I am interested to see what everyone else thinks. What keeps people "in line"? The rules or the morals behind the rules?
posted by Ami at 1:27 AM
6 Comments:
This is certainly in interesting issue, but I don't believe it applies quite so directly to humanity. While Wells is discussing the mechanisms of religion and social pressure that establish society, he is also discussing Animal nature. Without social pressure humans would not suddenly crawl on all fours. However, what is an interesting question is how do humans exist with no laws or regulations. It is impossible to know for sure, but around Wells's time most philosophers believed that man is innately good.
I would say for the most part that it is not necessarily the laws themselves that keep people in line but the punishment for breaking the laws. I am sure that 9 times out of 10 a person would run a stop sign if they knew there was no risk of punishment. That 1 person in 10 (probably less) is going to stop regardless because they are guided by an inner moral compass. All "civilized" people would like to think they are that law abiding and moral one person, but the fact of the matter is humans can't follow rules. They are indoctrinated as children to listen to authority but they never would if their parents did not raise them that way. As I said in class, I think the fact that the beast people cannot follow 5 or so simple rules and that humans cannot follow 10 rules/comandments shows that humans are only slightly less primitive than other animals.
Totally agree with Kristian. If there were no repercussions for breaking the law, then people would have no incentive to adhere to it. This is especially true for the majority of our rules, which revolve around things such as running a red light (or stop sign); here, there are no moral roadblocks unless an accident occurs. So only if someone feels the pain and stress of being in an accident does morality play a role. But then again, it's probably more self interest than morality, since that person would be looking to avoid feeling that same pain again.
I also agree--punishment is the main incentive behind following rules. While I do think that many laws do have moral ground behind them--laws against murder, sexual violence, etc--there are many laws that people follow because they may face public humiliation or monetary fines. While I do not think that it is human nature to be vicious, I do think that laws are necessary for people to know their limits and boundaries. I also believe that self-interest plays an important role in why humans choose to follow rules--if they see the consequences of someone else breaking a rule/law, they might be less likely to do the same and risk the same consequences.
I agree with Maxine that human behaivor without laws is guided largely by self-interest. I think that other than looking out for family and friends, humans are largely interested in helping themselves rather than others. If you're stuck on an island with some random person, and you find a little food, you're more likely to keep it for yourself than share it. However, you might try and build a boat with them to try and get off the island. In either case you are benefitting in one way or another and your actions are guided by your self-interest in survival. I don't think that humans are evil in nature and that people would go around killing others just for fun, but without laws I think that people would kill and steal if it meant it was in their self-interest and if they got some benefit out of it.
I agree totally with Kristian. Whenever a human contemplates breaking the law their very next thought is "Would I get caught?" or something along those lines. If they then conclude that they won't get caught and that nothing negative will happen to them, they are going to go ahead and break the law, especially if it might benefit them in some way, and regardless of whether or not it would hurt someone else. Tons of college students drink underage, I'm sure we all do or have. It's illegal, there's no denying that, but we do it anyway, and we never get caught. If we felt there was a legitimate threat to be apprehended, we probably wouldn't do it. But we don't and we never do get caught, and it happens all the time. Passing on the right is also illegal, but if someone is going under or at the speed limit in the fast lane, you can be damn sure I'm going to pass them on the right. These laws are not as severe and major as others though, however. For example, killing someone is illegal, most people would never kill someone even if they thought they would get away with it, and this is where morality comes into play.
Post a Comment
<< Home