Extraordinarily Wrong.

Ulysses Handy walked into his friends home and shot two men named Darren Christian and Daniel Varo. Almost directly after, Handy turned his gun on a complete stranger, Lindy Cochran, and killed her. When he was questioned about his motives in court, he said "She didn't say a damn word. She was shellshocked." He elaborated by saying that her freight didn't set him back at all. He explained saying, "I feel there are two kinds of people in the world—us and them. Predator and prey. Well, I'm damn sure not no prey". This man felt no remorse for his crime. To this day, he still believes he is above the law, and that his pervious actions were not wrong. This follows the theory talked about in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's, Crime and Punishment, and the character, Raskolnikov, and his 'Extraordinary Man Theory'. The extraordinary man theory states that humankind is split into two groups: the "ordinary", and "extraordinary". Raskolnikov believes that the ordinary group has the sole purpose of being the material to which society should be formed from. The extraordinary group has the right to transgress and evade the restrictions of the law. This group believes they can get away with anything, without going punished. So how does this relate to Handy's story? In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, much like Handy, believed he was not wrong in the murder of an innocent person. Raskolnikov thought he was one of these superior men, but soon began to question this as the story progressed. Similarly, I don't think Raskolnikov would say Ulysses Handy was anywhere near the status of an extraordinary man. In fact, Raskolnikov thought men like Newton, Napoleon, and Mahomet fell under this superior category. Nonetheless, the issue still rises that some people in our world today think they are excused form the law. These people believe they can commit any crime, and it is okay because they are "extraordinary". In result, crime rate increases, and people are faced with the challenge as to addressing this misconception. I believe every man, whatever color, race, religion, etcetera, falls under the same responsibilities to obey and respect the law. No one is above, and no one is below. This being said, Handy, Raskolnikov, and whoever else thinks they have some sort of excuse to escape the rules laid out for us as society, could not be any more wrong. Extraordinarily wrong.

Nature And Nurture: Good and Evil

Robert Louis Stevenson's, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, illustrates the concept of good and evil in human nature. This brings up the question as to how someone would become purely "good" or viciously "evil". Are they born with it? Have they picked the trait up form those around them? John Locke, an English philosopher during the Enlightenment, came up with a theory for how someone would become themselves. So, in this case, could Locke's theory also apply here? I believe yes. Locke's theory, 'The Tabula Rasa' or 'The Blank Slate', states that people are not born with previous knowledge. All knowledge and personality comes from experience or perception throughout life. Therefore, I say someone cannot be born good or bad. They can certainly become this way through tough upbringing, abusive childhoods, or some life experience that could influence such bad behaviors. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll contemplates that his dark side has always been there, but by supernaturally separating his good from evil and allowing these events to occur, he is supporting the claim that evil could be made worse form occurrences happening throughout ones life. On the other hand though, Dr. Jekyll does imply that his evil has always been inside him, it was just well hidden for most of his life. Whether or not he means by birth, I am not sure. Nonetheless, the issue is addressed throughout the story. In fact, I think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde effectively demonstrates the debate of Locke's Tabula Rasa. In society today, this debate is still a hot topic of discussion, especially in the field of modern science and psychology. An article in Psychology Today, Nature vs nurture: the debate rages on, states that recently, there has been more research on the brain indicating that sociopathy could be biologically based. The author, Samantha Smithstein Psy.D, believes "It remains difficult to stomach the idea that kids are sometimes born with biological factors that cause them to turn out a certain way". In this example, Smithstein supports the nature debate. I found the article very interesting and noticed similarities between Stevenson's underlying themes, and Smithsteins claims. This debate doesn't plan on stopping soon, whether Locke or Smithstein are correct. Until more research is completed, the world might never really know if good and evil is created through nature or nurture.