Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" concerns itself
with the concept that it can be acceptable to require the individual to
sacrifice for the greater good. This sentence is true to a certain extent, is
it really acceptable in any case to kill someone? After reading this passage
that question keeps running through my head. What is so important that the
people in this village need to murder someone once a year for? So in that
question it’s hard to say that it was for the greater good because we have no
idea what it’s done for. Being in the military it’s the same battle, you have a
constant voice in your head asking is this the right thing to do. I have many
friends that have been deployed who have been put in horrible situations and
they are still asking the question was it worth the sacrifice of one of the
men. The circumstances will always be a factor in that sentence that was the
sacrifice for the greater good?
So do you believe there is an ultimatum that would make a sacrifice morally acceptable and/or a functional event in society?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and it hurts me to think of people you know pondering the question of war and the decision to carry out their orders, and looseing the life of a brother in arms. Sacrafice for the common good, but who is it good for? The people or the person in charge? Is one man or woman's sacrafice of their life for the common good? How can death be for the common good for anyone, weather it is in war or being stoned at harvest?
ReplyDeleteThe interesting part of the comparison is, those in the military seem to have a conscience (questioning whether an action is for the greater good), whereas in "The Lottery," there is no evidence that anyone is soul searching. In fact, only Mrs. H. puts up a fuss, but that's not because she has a conscience. It's because her neck is on the chopping block, so to speak!
ReplyDelete