Читать книгу Morality and the Construction of Religion in Anne Rice's "Vampire Chronicles" - Christina Beyer - Страница 8

Louis comes from a very religious background. Especially his brother was known for being extremely fanatic when it came to religious matters. Louis says about him “My brother was to be a great religious leader, to return the country to its former fervor (France), to turn the tide against atheism and revolution. (Interview with the vampire 8) When his brother dies, Louis feels he is responsible for his death. Even though that is most definitely not the case, he cannot let go of feeling guilty. Therefore, he seeks the advice of a priest to whom he admits that he knows he did not kill his brother. After Luis has admitted to not being able to carry on life, the priest answers “‘That’s ridiculous,‘ (...) ‘Of course you can live. There’s nothing wrong with you but self-indulgence.“ (Interview with the Vampire 12)

Louis seeks the advice of a priest twice in Interview with the Vampire. The first time he is still human and even though he feels remorse about the tiniest things, in general, he cannot really be considered to be guilty of anything. The second time he encounters a priest, he must have killed approximately 50.000 people, considering that Louis has murdered two people a night on average, for seventy years. This time the priest has less friendly words for the vampire, but more importantly, Louis’ attitude towards Christian ethics has changed, as well. He confronts the priest with his doubts.

“’Why, if God exists, does He suffer me to exist!‘ I said to him. ‘You talk of sacrilege!‘ He dug his nails into my hands, trying to free himself, his missal dropping to the floor, his rosary clattering in the folds of his cassock. He might as well have fought the animated statues of the saints. I drew my lips back and showed him my virulent teeth. ‘Why does he suffer me to live?‘ I said.“ (Interview with the Vampire 146-147)

Given the assumption that God exists and that Christian ethics are something relevant, as well, the suffering of Louis is due to not being able to live according the Christian belief. Therefore, damnation is the only possible consequence for him. It becomes very obvious that Louis has a concept in mind which consists of the ideas of what is either good or evil. At this point, it is worth having a closer look on Christian ethics. In order to understand what good and evil can account for in Christianity, one needs to understand that these attributes are the two extremes of a scale.

David S. Cunningham is concerned with explaining these. He starts by pointing out that ethics are oftentimes two options only, namely right or wrong, or in other words, good or evil (Cunningham 20). This “two-choice system“ as he calls it, is helpful when it comes to clarifying questions that can only be answered with yes or no. As an example, he names the turning off of life-support systems, a question which requires a decision of yes or no. Anything in between would not make sense (Cunningham 22). In other cases, Cunningham is aware that choices that leave no gray area in between are likely to become very hard to judge (Cunningham 23). In fact, these decisions are the ones that occur most often (Cunningham 24). Therefore, it is no surprise that they do occur for Louis, as well. It is not a question that can easily be answered with “yes“ or “no“ when he is torn apart between the physical need for human blood and his refusal to hurt someone. Instead, Louis has to make a decision between his own life and the life of someone else. How is it possible for anyone to decide whose life is more valuable than that of somebody else’s?

There are certain principles by which one can decide if an action is morally right or wrong. One of these is the law of a society, according to which people can be forced to act in certain ways (Cunningham 31). Thus, the aspects of the relationship

between law and morality are explained. As it is impossible to control the thoughts of another person who, for example, has the desire to kill another human being, the law is mainly concerned with forbidding bad behavior (Cunningham 36). It is hard to encourage good behavior, but some people show tendencies of living a life that is likely to overstep to legal boundaries of the law (Cunningham 37). On the other hand, living according to the law does not necessarily mean that a person is good (Cunningham 38).

At this point, Cunningham introduces Paul of Tarsus, a Bible interpreter who believed that the law is complete only with the person of Jesus (Cunningham 40). Cunningham tries to justify this idea by explaining that Christianity is based on living in communities. He believes that individualism cannot exist in a world in which everything is connected.

“Our assumptions are largely inherited from those by whom we are surrounded. Even if we rebel against our communities of origin, we still find ourselves shaped by their structures – just as a jet of water is shaped and oriented by the pipe through which it is being pumped. We are connected to one another in deep and abiding ways, as we are sometimes surprised to discover.“ (Cunningham 47-48)

Here, again the value of a moral community becomes important again. To be able to live among others, certain rules need to be respected. That is not only true for religious communities, but for all kinds of communities. In order to live together peacefully, certain rules need to be established. To be able to evaluate ethics religiously, it is necessary to be familiar with the concept of sin. According to Quinn, “The concept of sin is the concept of a human fault that offends a morally perfect God and brings with it guilt.“ (A companion to philosophy of religion, Quinn 541) The Bible distinguishes between personal sin and original sin. Whereas the original sin is inherited by birth and goes back to Adam and Eve, the personal sin is performed individually and independent from the fall of Adam and Eve. One performs a personal sin if by the act of the person God (if He exists) is offended. Therefore, the sinfulness of a person’s actions depends on God’s existence. Still, an action can be morally wrong in itself.

“Divine prohibitions do not make such things as murder, torture or rape wrong; they serve instead to reinforce an independent morality. Murder is, so to speak, doubly wrong in virtue of being forbidden by God; it is both a wrong against the victim and a wrong against God. But murder would still be morally wrong even if it were not sinful because God did not exist. For actions of this type, moral wrongness is independent of sinfullness.“ (Quinn 542)

Moreover, logically speaking, murder is wrong independent of the existence of God. But Louis is not only concerned with moral questions; his thoughts are occupied with the question if heaven or hell exist. With a proof of God’s existence, the question of damnation, which in this case is equivalent with the definition of sin, could be answered. Unfortunately, metaphysical questions like that are hardly solvable. Moreover, taking into consideration the numerous murder of a vampire in general, Louis could only wish for the nonexistence of God, in which case the chance of a proof is even less likely. Still, there is an argument which suggests that hell does not exist. In his article, Jonathan L. Kvanvig suggests that God is depicted in the Bible as morally good. Given this assumption, the perfectly goodness is inconsistent with the willingness to perform evil.

“If God is incapable of evil and sending a person to hell is always unjust, then there simply cannot be any metaphysically possible world in which anyone goes to hell. That is, it cannot be a merely contingent truth that all are saved: it must instead be a necessary truth.“ (Kvanvig 564)

The argument that Kvanvig mentions seems very logical. It might even count as a proof that hell does not exist for those who do not have such a strong religious background. Still, religious people could argue that God moves in mysterious ways and that there might be a reason to punish the evildoer for his sins. However, as was already said, metaphysical questions like that are hard to be answer.

Instead, Cunningham asks if there is any substitute for God in our age. Since people do not believe in the Christian church as much as they used to centuries ago, there has to be something else that has equal value to them. He is convinced that people have the desire to belong to something (Cunningham 106). Cunningham argues that these believes “shape our character, our habits, our judgments, and our actions.“ Therefore, God (or an equivalent to Him) is needed for ethics. Furthermore, he asks if it is possible to be “good without God“ (Cunningham 107). What is important for him is to be part of a community and being involved in some kind of worshipping something or someone. The following example is very telling: “When attending a rock concert, one can enjoy the music and the spectacle; but one can also devote oneself to the superstars on the stage in ways that are not obviously different from worship.“ (Cunningham 109)

From this point of view, worshipping Lestat and his band and being a strong believer in the Christian religion is very comparable for Cunningham. In both cases, the act of worshipping is apparent. The only difference is that whereas Louis seeks to find some evidence of God, Lestat takes on the role of being worshipped and therefore become something like a God himself. Worshipping something other than God also clarifies the question of proving that something metaphysical.