The Perilous Plight of Sir George, Kandron the Dragon and the Twenty Delectable Virgins

Morality is a Useful Guide to behavior; and, like the law, it consists of principles that must perforce be illustrated with specific examples. Some of the cases in law are pretty farfetched, such as who owns a dead whale that A found floating with B's harpoon in him. Nevertheless, these cases--dead whales, escaped foxes and reasonable men--form the basis on which the law rests. Observe that the English separated law from equity at a fairly early date, since it was obvious that the proper working of the law excluded equity.

Now, law is to equity as morality is to practicality; and while moral behavior should ideally be practical as well, logic demands the separation of the two--particularly since practical behavior has very little to do with morality.

Much of this trouble derives from the very root source of morality, which is, of course, the moral class. The moral class being a set of people who loudly respect one another's good judgement and who, for a fee, will extol your necesities as virtues. Moral behaviorior therefore comes to be of advantage to the rich. To illustrate this point. let us examine a few cases. Answer true or false.

1. It is wrong to steal bread if you are starving.

2. It is wrong to steal bread if your children are starving.

3. It is wrong to steal caviar if you are starving.

(continued on page 184) The Perilous Plight (continued from page 99)

4. It is wrong to steal caviar if you are starving, when you could have stolen bread just as easily.

5. It is wrong to steal caviar when you are tired of bread.

6. It is wrong to send your children out to steal if you are all starying, even if they are better at stealing than you are.

Let us now consider the answers to these questions. In France, before the Revolution, the answer was true in every case. At that time, law, morality, religion, the bureaucracy and the king were all at the service of the propertied classes. Never-theless, number two was regarded as a little less true than the others, because a man's love for his family was given by God so that the family might be a stable vehicle for the orderly conveyance of property; and an attack on the family was felt, indirectly, to be an attack on property.

In the United States, where food has always been abundant, number one and number two are false: but because of our Puritan heritage, number three is true, although now somewhat "sicklied o'er with doubt," and number lour is undoubtedly true. Stealing money to buy bread or caviar has always been frowned upon. Millers, bakers and wheat larmers argue, with some justice, that "Yeah, let 'em steal our bread ... but don't let 'em steal the money to buy it!" is unfair. Since all they can offer in return is "Let 'em steal cake," they can be ignored. The real reason stealing money is howned upon is that it may be used to purchase luxuries, such as champagne to go with the caviar, rather than virtuous Spartan bread. Among the rich, mumber five is true; but among the poor, it tends to be an ifly proposition. How tired of bread are you? This is a reflection of the Puritan notion that God rewards the elect in this world and the next, so that a rich man has an odds-on chance to get into heaven, despite the New Testament. If you are poor, it is God's will: and you shouldn't be enjoying yourself, especially at other people's expense.

In the Orient, and generally wherever people expect to be supported by their children, number six is lalse. A nick question, it deals with the morality of theft and the morality of hlial duty. The Filth Commandment is: Honor thy father and thy mother. It is the children's duty to go out and steal for their parents. In the United States, however, number six is true. The parents are expected to go out and bring home the groceries until they are pensioned off. Filial duty is unheard of, and the children go through college at monstrous expense and then complain because the old man left such a small estate.

Let us now consider sexual morality and where one draws the line between moral and immoral behavior. Since this comes at once to specific, if hypothetical, cases, we shall consider Sir George and the dragon.

Brielly, the dragon (named Kandron) was about to make his annual meal of 20 virgins gathered from around the countryside, when he was interrupted by Sir George coming to their rescue. Kandron and Sir George are a bit afraid of each other, despite the fact that the knight has slain other dragons and the dragon has devoured other knights. So they make an agreement: Kandron will start eating at one end of the line, while Sir George will start defloration proceedings at the other end, and they will continue until no more virgins remain.

The moral questions involved are quite complex; and leaving aside the question of the morality of the compromise, which is not heroic but not morally detestable either, we find that ordering the virgin line is a matter of some difficulty. Do we arrange them by weight, so that the dragon starts on the fattest, or by beauty, so that the knight will be inspired to fantastic feats of arm? The technical aspect of the question depends upon Sir George's physical prowess and upon Kandron's appetite and abilities as a trencher beast. Clearly, the dragon is interested in making the best meal possible, while the knight wishes to save the most maidens. The most moral virgin line would therefore appear to be ordered by weight, with Kandron starting at the fat end. However, the most moral arrangement is the one that will permit the knight to maximize his score of virgins. so beauty must also be considered. This, of course, presumes an honest bargain. Kandron may attack the knight at any time, just as Sir George may seek toslay the dragon, should he catch it off guard. Discounting the extreme cases where Sir George dallies with one while the dragon devours the others so that he might slay the engorged beast on its post-prandial circumgyration, or where Kandron picks at his food until the knight comes to him, too feeble to stand erect, we find that the critical moral question for Sir George is where to stop.

Consider: The virgin line has been arranged by Sir George so that he starts with the three thinnest virgins, followed by the four most beautiful, followed by the balance indecreasing order of fatness. The logic involved is that the knight starts with the skinny virgins while he is fresh and switches to the pretty ones when he begins to flag. The fat virgins are to impede the dragon's progress as the end of the line is reached. We have assumed that no significant number of virgins will literally prefer death before dishonor. We have also discounted the Buddhist morality that says: Do harm to no living thing. By Buddha, it is more moral to dellower a single virgin than to slay the dragon and save all 20.

In any event, the critical case comes when Sir George has finished number seven and the dragon is part way through number nine, leaving only number eight, the fattest virgin. Morality here fades into practicality, for if Kandron is well advanced, it is time for Sir George to leave. It is a serious matter to attempt the defloration of your eighth virgin of the day with a still-hungry dragon snuflling around your back. Still ... what constitutes "well advanced"? If Kandron has reached the armpits, why kiss number eight goodbye? If he is only at the knees, Sir George should rally his forces and "Once more unto the breach, good friends!" In both cases, his action is moral. However, what is to be done when the dragon is at number nine's waist? In this case, the line that divides moral from immoral behavior is the waistline; and when one stands at the border line, moral decisions are made for extraneous and frivolus reasons. In this case, like most others, morality will be judged by the outcome. If Sir George abandons number eight, he will always blame himself some what. If he saves her but gets eaten himself, he might as well have fought Kandron in the beginning. Only a totally satisfactory outcome will afford moral satisfaction, and the decision must be made at once. This is typical of morally ambiguous cases, and the correct response is procrastination. Observe that if Sir George waits a few minutes, the dragon will reach the armpits and the matter resolves itself. Generally, if you can put off long enough making your decision, the matter will either resolve itself or be taken out of your hands entirely. The logical justification for procrastination is that it is better not to act than to act wrongly, and acting wrongly includes doing the wrong deed and doing the right deed for the wrong reason.