If I had the remaking of man, he wouldn’t have any conscience. It is one of the most disagreeable things connected with a person; and although it certainly does a great deal of good, it cannot be said to pay, in the long run; it would be much better to have less good and more comfort (163).
I thought long and hard about this passage, and started to think about the way in which it can be interpreted. I first tried to see the passage from the narrator’s point of view, so it would be possible to put it in context.
My first thought is that this is an incredibly profound statement that I absolutely disagree with. That being said, I see where Hank is coming from. He is seeing all of this injustice around him, and feels for the people he sees that are deserving of a better hand than they are dealt. He wishes there was something he could do, that there was a way he could make everything better for these people. This is why he wishes he did not have a conscience: Hank does not want to deal with these feelings of pity for people that cannot be helped. He contends he would be better, “to have less good and more comfort” (163). If one cannot feel a sense of right and wrong, than there is nothing to weigh one down with from a moral perspective. Hank thinks that if there is no conscience, he will not feel the injustice that he sees, and can go along without a care in the world. As the saying goes, “Ignorance is bliss”. Ignorance in this case is not having a perception of what is right or wrong, and without these feelings, man would not have a care in the world, and life would be much simpler (163).
As I said earlier, I see where Hank is coming from. When seeing terrible acts going on around, one can see why he would wish for people to not have to worry about morals. However, I am of the belief that a conscience is a necessary part of what makes us human. In my English 402 Critical Theory class, we were describing the essential attributes of what makes one “man”. One of the things we saw as crucial was the idea that man has to make choices in life, and these choices somewhat define him. Aristotle describes this as a tragic flaw, an error within pieces of tragedy that lead a person to his or her ultimate destiny (from Critical Theory Since Plato, Aristotle p.58). I see these choices that Aristotle describes as conscience decisions that makes us who we are. If man is not able to see the difference between right and wrong, between what is just and unjust, how will he ever find what his true destiny is? Aristotle says that a character in tragedy makes a decision: this decision ultimately defines his or her life (58). If people were to live their lives in the way that Hank describes, we would cease to be human. We would not have that perception of feeling, would not notice when we make mistakes. In Aristotle’s view, we would be unable to meet our final destiny (58).
Skeptics may say that tragedy is not real, and that we cannot base real characteristics off of plays. In defense of my position, I once again point to Aristotle, who states that, “Tragedy is essentially an imitation not of persons but of action and life, of happiness and misery” (55). Part of being a human is the ability to weigh what is right and wrong. Without a conscience, this would not be possible. Therefore, without a conscience, we cannot make a decision that leads us to our ultimate fate. This, in turn, prevents us from being human. I see Hank’s perspective, and can see why he makes his statements, but I personally cannot subscribe to a reasoning that asks me to dehumanize mankind for the sake of ease.
I think part of Morgan would agree with you, and that's the ‘rub’; his and Twain’s. Otherwise, I don’t think Hank would even bother thinking about the issue if he were completely sold one way or another. Surely we will always wrestle with this question (giving Twain’s work longevity), but I think this part of the narrative seems to have a lot of its author seeping through. Whether this was intentional or not I can’t say, except to remember that Mark Twain is usually so careful about his constructions (a must for a satirical writer). Either way it does force us to do more than a spot of thinking—because in both Camelot and America the Haves can only exist if there are Have Nots. Any comfort comes at the cost of another; sometimes the cost is small, but in this case it is the steep price of human value.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if this is one of the points where the author’s goal is to strike home a point by highlighting the parallel between our struggles and Hank’s. Many like to pretend that satirical pieces are just amusing little bits; novel ideas like a good ole’ American guy traveling back to visit King Arthur. What has been indicative (at least in my mind) of excellent satire is its ability to make the connection—if people don’t catch what you’re critiquing then there’s no point. Here, Twain pretty much lays one of his concerns out there pretty blatantly; that way it can’t be ignored. Because all societies have been so good at ignoring their faults…
Perhaps you, Kiana, or others, can flesh out the parallels and distinctions between Twain's Arthurian England (itself a fiction) and his suggestions about 19th c. America, and our world today. Go back to the text and look at specific examples.
ReplyDeleteWhat say you to the idea that our conceptions of right and wrong are not inherent parts of our human identities, but social constructs, developed over centuries over philosophic struggle within various cultures?
ReplyDeleteI think that--while Hank's words on 163 seem to indicate that his own beliefs differ--Hank's sociological observations about the 6th century seem to acknowledge morality as a trickily evolving beast. Hank often confronts issues that disturb his 19th century moral sensibilities, and attempts to go about correcting them (or not). The pervasiveness of these moral conflicts is blatant; from the prisoners on Hanks first night in the century (53), to Morgan LeFay's Dungeon (163), the slaves (190), and a general disdain for the caste system and the judicial methods of the time, the reader is constantly confronted with the disalignment of Hanks own morality from the ethics of the time. The chasm between Hank's own ethical-coding and that of (a majority of) the denizens of Arthurian England indicates that the concepts of right/wrong are extremely effected by time and societal change. Thereby, I would argue that Twain's work implies a socially constructed morality far more than one that is an inherent part of the individual.