Linden Lark was the worst type of person: racist, rapist, murder. He kidnapped and killed a new mother, Mayla Wolfskin, because he claimed to love her and was raging that she had a baby with another man. He made no positive contributions to society and is a destructive sociopath. So does it make it just for Joe to kill Linden? A categorical thinker would argue that it was absolutely immoral and unjust for Linden to be murdered. They locate morality in the action itself: murder is wrong under all circumstances. Contrasting, a consequence thinker would argue Joe's actions brought justice because Linden's death produced peace for his family and the community.
A consequence theorist would insist one must be proactive and can defy one's morals to protect the one's we love. You could say that by avenging all the lives Linden destroyed, Joe brought back balance and order; that we should rejoice that Linden was eliminated form our gene pool. However, I associate myself as a categorical thinker: act upon your morally instincts no matter the circumstances.After Lark's death, Joe learns he reacted to quickly too the situation, "(Bugger) had seen her dead body. If we hadn't killed Lark, he'd have gone to jail for life anyway" (310). Lark would not of been charged for rape of Gerdaline, however he would've been jailed for first degree murder of Mayla. Instead of patiently waiting for the inevitable outcome, Joe is haunted by his actions and the involvement of his deceased friend for the rest of his life. When the universe's judicial balance has been disturbed, it has an odd way of re-balancing balancing the scales. So make sure you always have Karma on your side.

No comments:
Post a Comment