Is Richard a "bad" boy?
When should behavior be blamed on the person and when should it be blamed on the environment?
I think that Richard is not an inherently bad boy, but much of his bad behavior is at least partly explained by his environment. One place where this seems to be the case is when Richard burns down his house at age four. The reason he chose to play with fire in the first place is because his mother told him to keep completely quiet and still, which is a lot to expect from almost any four-year-old. His decision to burn things was only intended to entertain, not destroy.
Another misdeed that I feel Richard is not fully culpable for is when he kills a kitten. In contrast to when Richard set the house on fire, the murder of the kitten did arise from an evil impulse, so some blame rests on Richard. However, the idea of killing the kitten came to him because his mean-spirited father, who ought to have known better due to his greater age, told him to do so in anger; Richard saw a chance to get back at his father without being beaten. Therefore, Richard's father's abuse also bears some responsibility.
A third event where Richard behaved badly, but was not truly accountable is when he became an alcoholic at age six. The original reason for this is because he was fascinated by the frightening, mysterious saloon; I don't think it's especially surprising that a young boy would be amazed at the odd behaviors exhibited by drunk people. Unfortunately, Richard was captured by a customer, after which all the patrons pressured him to drink, and on top of that paid him for doing so. Thanks to the drunkards' poor influence, Richard soon became addicted to alcohol and to the money he received. He should not have returned to the saloon, but the blame rests far more heavily on the drunks who encouraged him.
Basically, I think behavior can be blamed on people to a certain extent, but the circumstances are very important to determine the degree of culpability. If a person isn't old enough or smart enough. for instance, to know their actions are wrong, they certainly are not accountable for them. Circumstances also come into play when things such as provocation and motive are taken into account. If a person was adequately provoked into a misdeed, then the provoker deserves part of the blame. If a person's intent was harmless when they acted, they should not be considered completely evil for their deed.
After all, people don't live in a vacuum. Our surroundings affect our lives as much as we do.
I think that Richard is not an inherently bad boy, but much of his bad behavior is at least partly explained by his environment. One place where this seems to be the case is when Richard burns down his house at age four. The reason he chose to play with fire in the first place is because his mother told him to keep completely quiet and still, which is a lot to expect from almost any four-year-old. His decision to burn things was only intended to entertain, not destroy.
Another misdeed that I feel Richard is not fully culpable for is when he kills a kitten. In contrast to when Richard set the house on fire, the murder of the kitten did arise from an evil impulse, so some blame rests on Richard. However, the idea of killing the kitten came to him because his mean-spirited father, who ought to have known better due to his greater age, told him to do so in anger; Richard saw a chance to get back at his father without being beaten. Therefore, Richard's father's abuse also bears some responsibility.
A third event where Richard behaved badly, but was not truly accountable is when he became an alcoholic at age six. The original reason for this is because he was fascinated by the frightening, mysterious saloon; I don't think it's especially surprising that a young boy would be amazed at the odd behaviors exhibited by drunk people. Unfortunately, Richard was captured by a customer, after which all the patrons pressured him to drink, and on top of that paid him for doing so. Thanks to the drunkards' poor influence, Richard soon became addicted to alcohol and to the money he received. He should not have returned to the saloon, but the blame rests far more heavily on the drunks who encouraged him.
Basically, I think behavior can be blamed on people to a certain extent, but the circumstances are very important to determine the degree of culpability. If a person isn't old enough or smart enough. for instance, to know their actions are wrong, they certainly are not accountable for them. Circumstances also come into play when things such as provocation and motive are taken into account. If a person was adequately provoked into a misdeed, then the provoker deserves part of the blame. If a person's intent was harmless when they acted, they should not be considered completely evil for their deed.
After all, people don't live in a vacuum. Our surroundings affect our lives as much as we do.
2 comments:
At what age should we stop blaming our surroundings, get over it, and make ourselves into functioning members of society? I agree that a child is more a product of their environment, but can an adult use that excuse for the rest of their lives?
Jenny, I agree with you that Richard is placed into an enviornment where he is faced with bad infuences everywhere. He does not realize that most of the actions he takes are not the best choices. Richard is taught at a young age that violence solves all problems so unfortunately, that is the motto he goes by on a day to day basis.
Post a Comment