GRGR (15): Good & Evil (was Enzian...)

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

Paul Mackin wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Terrance F. Flaherty wrote:
> >
> > They are very much part of the moral questions posed by the
> > novel, but if we discuss them in the abstract (are these
> > acts good or evil) we can easily divert ourselves away from
> > the moral questions these acts call our attention to in the
> > novel. I'm not saying that this or that is by its nature
> > wrong, sinful, immoral, but take one from the text of GR and
> > lets discuss it. There is no ambiguity. What is happening
> > with Katje and Pudding? Why does Pointsman want to fuck
> > children? Why does Marvy want to control another? There is
> > no ambiguity, whatever we may believe about these acts in
> > the abstract, in the novel, they are evil.
> >
> Gosh, I've got to demur a teensy bit here. Pederasty and messing up
> demented old men may WELL be evil in the abstract. In the novel these
> things constitute mere play of the imagination. I know Pudding dies (too
> much escherichia coli (sp)) and who knows what happens to the girls, but
> eeevil??? No way, IMHO.
> 
> Here's a question for you casuists out there. What is the significance of
> Slothrop NOT having sex with the girl with the doll with the lapislazuli
> eyes? (hope this isn't too gross)
> 
>                         P.


Careful with that word "casuists" I could take that as an
insult--Sophistical or equivocal; specious, though I think
you mean one who studies or resolves ethical problems or
cases of conscience.