https://poets.org/poem/design
Give it a quick look.
Some interpretations of this poem suggest that Robert Frost is making a comment on the cruelness of a creator, and that the perils we face in life are a product of broken world that we have been left to face alone and abandoned. The spider, the flower, and the moth supposedly act as an extended metaphor for evil, the world, and us. In other words, the trap has been set, and we are walking right into it.
However, an interpretation of that nature fails to address much of what Frost has done with this poem, structurally and otherwise. The first thing we have to understand is that this poem is a sonnet, and that he finishes it, in Shakespearian style, with a rhyming couplet. His choice to do so points us to the notion that he is using the rhyming couplet as the key to understand the poem. It gives the hint that unlocks the theme.
So what are we dealing with exactly? Well, there is a white spider roaming about, most likely looking for a meal. He happens to come across a white heal-all, which is incredibly important to the unraveling of this narrative. Why? Well because heal-alls normally look like this:
And if you were to put a big, supple, white spider on this flower, it would stick out like a sore thumb. So ultimately, this spider has found the perfect place to lay a trap for unsuspecting prey. And sure enough, that is what happens. When Frost stumbles upon the carnage, the white spider is on a white heal-all, holding a dead moth. The tragedy lies in the fact that the moth was lured into a death that under different circumstances would not have occurred. It would have seen the spider, it would have avoided the flower, and it would have survived. At least a little longer... And for this reason, Frost begins to ask the question of how this seemingly perfect set of events came together. Was it by design? In other words, was the moth fated to die? Was this some cruel alignment put into place by a cruel creator that enjoys burning ants under the magnifying glass?
Frost then goes on to note that if this is in fact the case, if design is working in the smallest parts of nature, then there is a darkness that persists. Our designer is appalling.
And of course, if this is in fact the case, he is quite right. Did you know that there is a particular type of wasp that, when ready to lay eggs, seeks out an unassuming caterpillar, paralyzes it, deposits its eggs inside, and then waits for them to hatch? And that isn't even the worst part. Her larva systematically eat the caterpillar from the inside out, saving the vital organs for the end in order to keep it alive as long as possible. Then they burst out. They burst out.
And did you know that there is a type of shark that has two uteri and only ever gives birth to twins even though there is reason to believe that she has up to twenty fertilized eggs inside of her after ovulation? Yep, that's right, 20. The eggs are fertilized at slightly different times, and the young baby sharks fight inside the womb, eating one another throughout the duration of their development until there is only one per womb.
Nature is certainly cruel, but there is also no morality associated with it. We aren't going to say "That's a bad wasp", or "That shark probably needs to reevaluate her decision making". And we aren't going to say these things because these animals are not acting rationally, these are not decisions they are making, at least not in the way that we as humans do. In accordance with Aristotle, animals lack the rational soul, and it the rational soul that is the foundation of our moral system. Humans can act against their survival to do what they know is right. They can evaluate each situation and identify the good (that which does no harm to self or others), and then they can decide to act against it or in accordance with it! Their freewill and rational nature, make them accountable. Which provides the foundation for our second principle of moral philosophy.
1. We can not judge people, we can only judge their actions.
2. Morality only applies to humans actions because humans possess a freewill that extends beyond survival and they operate with a rational soul.
Understanding this then allows us to move on to our third principle and fourth principles of moral theology: the debated questions of whether morality is objective or subjective, and why we should behave in a moral manner . However, before we jump into the debate, there are a couple things that we must first establish. One, morality can be objective even if people think that it is subjective and even if they treat it as such. What it is and how it is thought to be are two very different things. Two, if morality is subjective, then the moral quality of an action can change based on the circumstances, situation, culture, people involved, etc. When we understand these two concepts, it changes the nature of this debate completely. The argument is not actually between objective morality and subjective morality, but rather between whether morality is objective or if it exists at all. Let me explain: If morality is subjective, then everyone gets their own definition of what is good, and what is bad. And if a word can be defined in any way that we see fit, than that word actually has no definition whatsoever. If we define good and bad or right and wrong, then in actuality, there is no good and bad or right or wrong. And if we insist on being moral subjectivists, and we insist on coming up with our own definitions of right and wrong, then we must also extend that privilege to everyone. So when we see an image like this:
We do not get to claim that it was wrong if the people who committed the action believed it to be right. And we certainly cannot demand accountability for it. People can not be punished in a subjectively moral system for doing what they believed to be right.
So how do we amend this? After all, we have fought hard for moral subjectivity. It allows us to do what we want. Well, the number one way is that we become subjective objectivists. (I know what you're thinking: That doesn't make any sense. And you're right. But we do it anyway.) In other words, we decide, subjectively, what is right, but then we want it to be objectively applied. But then what do we do with the other subjective objectivists that want the same thing? It is a recipe for disaster.
So here in lies the choice: morality is either objective (good and bad or right and wrong are not influenced by our opinion or our beliefs) or there is no morality at all. And I can not say with certainty which of the options is the right one (and this is the case with a lot of moral issues, but us not knowing what is right does not mean that something isn't still right or wrong) but I do know that we have to operate as if morality is objective otherwise we should be abiding by the laws of evolution and simply governing ourselves by the survival of the fittest. If there is no morality, then we should behave "morally" only so long as it benefits us.
Therefore we are left with a nice tidy equation to getting what we all want at the end of the day.
Morality is defined as the assessment of human behavior as being good or bad/right or wrong (objectively). It applies to humans only because they alone possess the rational soul. They have the ability to reason and act in accordance with it or against it.
Thus, the process looks like this:
1. You are faced with a moral decision, and your freewill is intact.
2. You employ wisdom and prudence (in other words, you think about the action and judge it as right or wrong)
3. You do the good.
4. You are happy.
In other words, according to Aristotle: Morality = Happiness
Moral Principles 3 and 4:
1. Morality is either objective or there is no morality at all.
2. Behaving in a moral manner will make it easier to behave morally, and it will make you happy!
Enjoy!
No comments:
Post a Comment