The four main characters, Joe, Kate, Ann, and Chris all make a series of choices of actions whether they benefit family or society. Many examples arise like Chris inviting Ann to stay and Ann deciding to come, but I think the most interesting choice was that of Joe’s. The play gives us background knowledge that Joe sent out faulty airplane parts and blamed it on his partner. The faulty parts killed 21 men and Joe, when prosecuted, blamed a partner and his partner went to jail. For Joe money has always been important and money hurting more than helping is a prominent theme throughout the play. Joe claims, “Chris… Chris I did it for you, it was a chance I took for you. I’m sixty-one years old, when would I have another chance to make something for you” (70). Joe tells us that he only sent out bad parts for his family, he only sent them out so that his family could be successful. In this situation Joe did something for his family’s benefit and not for the benefit of society. Another interesting decision was Chris’s when he found out the truth about his father. He doesn’t know if he should do the right thing and report the truth to authorities or if he should keep it within his family. He ultimately decides, “What? Do I raise the dead when I put him behind bars? Then what’ll I do it for? We used to shoot a man who acted like a dog, but honor was real there, you were protecting something” (81). Chris was stuck between his family and what was right, although, we never really find out his decision because his dad kills himself shortly after.
In my opinion this play was very interesting in its discussion of morals and ethics. I think, for the mast part, one needs to look out for the greater good. I think the needs of society should outweigh family needs if the family made a mistake and hurt the society. Family needs are important, though, and I think that they can come before society needs in emergencies and when the family is innocent of something society is trying them against. Society needs are most important though. If society has a murderer on the loose, for example, and they are in your family, society needs you to reveal the murderer and you should. If society has a standard that is doable and a family will not comply, this is another example of where a society need would require you to put it above a family moral or ethic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Spenser-good analysis on meeting the needs of society vs. the needs of the family. Joe was more apt to thinking of family, and Chris for the society. Until, like you said, Joe kills himself. There is when his decision might have been altered. Also- I like your murderer example. I suppose if my little sister ever went off on the loose murdering people in Edina, I just might have to report her. 6-year-olds. psh.
Wow, I think everyone is using the same quote to prove Joe's point of view. However, your idea for Chris was different than the others I've read. It's interesting that you say that Chris doesn't have a concrete position, since we never find out whether he sends his dad to jail or not. I also like how you consider both sides when you discuss your opinion.
Post a Comment