If an action is committed without evil intent, is the person committing the action evil? What about the action itself? One can easily argue that killing another individual is evil, but what if they’re murdered by somebody who was told their entire life that murder was a completely acceptable act, like giving somebody a high five? Ignoring the morality of the person who taught our hypothetical individual such things, can the murderer in that case truly be faulted and condemned as evil?
What about the act of murder itself? Would the murder still be evil? While debate is still possible, it seems to me that there would be fewer people willing to defend an evil action in and of itself, regardless of the intent behind it. But why is murder wrong? I will give my own, arguably simplistic answer, and state that it is wrong because it brings harm to another person, specifically ending their life. So, the act of murder is wrong because of the consequences of the action on another person following that logic.
When we combine these two questions together we reach the question of Sigismundo. His actions are certainly ones that could be called heinous, even if his throwing the servant off the balcony is darkly comical, but the prince believes that what he is experiencing is simply a dream. A world where the people are not real, and there are no consequences, as the dream will simply end and he’ll return to reality. What we have is a case of an individual who, considering they had a Catholic education, is aware of the usual immorality of murder, but has found himself in a dream world, where the reason why murder and cruelty are immoral seemingly don’t apply, unaware of the fact that he’s actually experiencing reality, and his actions DO have consequences (2180-2187). As infuriating as he can be, a man who has lived his entire life a prisoner living out a power fantasy where he decides who lives and dies in a dream can be argued to be little different than somebody who kills an NPC in a video game. Furthermore, we as readers can say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he would have done the exact same actions knowing that he was, in fact, experiencing reality. If anything, Sigismund’s sudden change of heart in the third act can be said to be indicative of how he likely would have behaved differently if he had known so. Does that justify Sigismund arguably not paying for his actions for you as an audience member however? Personally, despite intellectually understanding my own arguments, I still cannot help but rather intensely dislike the character. In addition, from the religious and arguably more broad moral perspective, is fantasizing about sin that one is aware is sin still wrong, even if it isn’t acted upon (or at least is thought to not be truly acted upon)? Life is a Dream raises these questions up for discussion, and I eagerly await to discuss said implications in class.
Spoiler alert! Do not read if you haven’t watched Tron yet!
After reading your blog post, I began to wonder whether or not morality should exist within a virtual realm. I believe that people should maintain morality within these realms because distinguishing between reality and the virtual can be difficult, if not impossible at times. Since the boundaries between reality and fiction blur and sometimes overlap, we may confuse reality with fiction. Therefore, it is best to uphold our moral standards regardless of our environment. Furthermore, if people are conscious and can experience emotion within a virtual realm, is that realm really fantasy? For instance, in the movie Tron, genocide was committed against the ISOs. Although this violent massacre occurred within a video game, which can be considered an artificial simulation, Quorra experienced grief for the people she lost, and she also entered reality at the end of the film. Therefore, despite the presence of an altered reality, the events that occurred within this realm were still quite real, and she carried the emotional weight from the artificial environment with her into reality.
To answer another question you posed, I didn’t feel unsatisfied that Segismund was not punished for his actions. I believe that Segismund was raised in inhumane conditions that made it impossible for him to behave any other way once he was given power. In other words, those harsh conditions determined his destiny. To me, the question of why Segismund suddenly changed his monstrous demeanor at the end of the play is more difficult to answer.