I admit to being a big fan of the work of Terry Pratchett. It may well be that I read between the lines in a manner influenced by my liberal world view, but a lot of his work appears to expound a moral code that challenges many of our lazier assumptions. Here, in "Hogfather", Death is arguing with his grand-daughter, Susan...
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.
It would be nice if this resonated better with some of my colleagues at the moment...
That doesn't mean that justice and mercy aren't real, of course. It just means that they aren't the sort of things that can be sieved and weighed.
ReplyDeleteUnless you can prove that those two categories ('real things' and 'things that can be sorted and counted and measured') are coincident, of course.
Anonymous,
DeleteI wouldn't even begin to suggest that your second point should be contested. But I do find myself wondering if justice and mercy should be such tortured concepts as some of my colleagues imply. Shouldn't principles of either be held consistently, or else risk devaluation?