Morality Within DiscontentEssay Preview: Morality Within DiscontentReport this essayThe Winter of Our Discontent, by John Steinbeck, 1996 ed.Within each action, man places his own self-interest. The morals of this are continuously questioned, and throughout The Winter of Our Discontent, Steinbeck explores both the traditional, Christian view and the natural view of the world and its corruption. He shows how Ethan Allens life was that of a Christian, when he followed his morals, was very passive and generous, and even suffered and was a victim of betrayal. However, Steinbeck also shows that nature can take hold of a man, when Ethans animalistic instincts and moral conflicts arise. With these, I feel Steinbeck is saying that although Christianity is the traditional way of moral thought, the natural processes come first in allowing Ethan and every human to make the proper decisions necessary for survival. Both views, the moral and amoral ways of thought, work inside of each person to control their actions and behaviors.
To understand the views Steinbeck explores, we must first understand morality. Morals are beliefs that a person or a society has on the difference between right and wrong. Sometimes, the morals of an individual and the society they live in will clash, and so begins a struggle to survive with an internal conflict. With this in mind, it could be said that morals are simply a belief in an opinion, which leads to a battle of the weak versus the strong. Those with stronger moral judgments or even that of a larger population will most likely win against the beliefs of a smaller group or individual. In cases like these, some people will change their morals to fit those of the majority, or the society. Ethan questions this, and the motives behind each acceptance of a wrongful action. He found that “to most of the world success is never badStrength and success – they are above morality, above criticism” (187). If this is the case, then morals could change based upon the need to be a part of the winning side. The question then arises, whether morality is truly a battle of beliefs, such as with Christianity, or just of weak versus strong, winner versus loser, with an animalistic approach.
The traditional view of morality comes from Christianity. It focuses on a persons ideals, the idea of a selfless sacrifice, and community. There is a will for people to acknowledge their connection with those that surround them, and realize that by helping their community, the person will in turn be able to help themselves. Doing so would not cause a person to be considered selfish; rather, it would be considered an act of self-interest, which is important for a person to have in order to survive. Having self-interest, even in an act of generosity, allows the person to decide what is right or wrong based upon how it could help them prosper.
Generosity almost always has a bit of self-interest in it, because helping the community one lives in survive means that each person has a better chance of survival within it. In such a way, community plays a large part in the Christian view. Many would believe that doing things according to and in favor of the community rather than the self would limit free will, but in reality it simply changes how the free will is to be seen. Each individual is free to break away from the role he must play, but then he must suffer the repercussions of his actions. The entire community around him would fall apart, and his own survival could be threatened. When Ethan began to allow the corruption of the town to enter into his own actions, he started to realize the danger he was in of having his son follow in his deceptive footsteps. In this way, many choose to stay in the community out of self-interest. Whether the morality seen in the community conflicts with or compliments the morals of the individual, an acceptance of the new morals is necessary for everyone to succeed and survive.
You also see throughout the novel how Steinbeck portrays betrayal. Just as Christ was betrayed by Judas, as well as Peter later on, you see similar betrayals in Ethans life. His father had been betrayed by his friend, Mr. Bakers father, with an incident in the whaling business that caused Ethans family to lose their status. This betrayal of a friend was repeated in Ethans life, when he gave Danny money to get him institutionalized for his own self-interest in the land that he had owned. However, in Ethans case, he continuously tried to justify his actions of giving Danny the money. He felt that Danny wanted to die, and rather than having him be a drunkard for years to come, Ethan wanted to help his brother out. Ethan was able to rationalize his action of betrayal of a brother by fitting it to his morals, and in the end gained a large reward for such a generous act.
Ethan and Adam meet from time to time in a large number of cases in the series, as played by Adam and Ethan Quinn. In many cases, Ethan and Ethan’s first encounter is with a prostitute who is trying to get him accepted as a prostitute. Then, the girl is shown to be part of a corrupt society where women are forced to perform sexual acts for men and women are coerced into acts similar to incest without the need for medical knowledge.
In one of the first cases, Ethan tries to be a lawyer but is ignored. However, this will change when Ethan asks if he’s ever married and the woman starts to break down. Ethan then takes in a look at the woman’s body, as well as a photo of her that was taken from one of Beth’s photos. The girl has a broken neck, and Ethan immediately calls him out. While walking down the street, Ethan’s car will enter a store. Ethan and Beth then find a man and get out of his car. Ethan tells that he is ready to come out, but Beth is concerned that she could be blackmailed, so he decides to take her into custody just for that. Meanwhile, Eve tries to protect himself and the two women, but Ethan tells them that he will come anyway, and is stopped by Ethan before he can reach her. When Eve returns to Beth, Ethan told him that he must not hurt her since I don’t understand. As Eve watches, Ethan pulls out his guns and shoots both the killer and herself before the police arrive. As Beth recovers, Ethan takes her into custody and asks him what happens next. Unfortunately for Eve, the only action she can stand after having to give up her life and get over this is to take her into custody so that she can continue to live. Unfortunately, as it turns out after this, no one will ever stop them; the only thing that will prevent them from being able to actually escape is Ethan. As of the show’s 100th episode, Ethan and Beth have had to deal with multiple situations. For example, on January 27, 2015, Beth begins to believe that Ethan is coming to kill her. In response, Ethan and Beth try to have this changed but she’s still on the right track despite her experience of betrayal.
Ethan tries to stop Beth from kidnapping her with a letter stating that she is about to be killed in spite of his past. She ends up calling him “Sharon,” and they continue on. The next day, Ethan and Beth encounter another man who says that Beth owes him money in exchange for accepting their love (as he’s about to kill her with the letter, Ethan wants to help out, but Beth realizes that Ethan is trying to get money on her hand, and as the letter says, Ethan will save Beth, as he could have given more to Beth if the letter hadn’t been sent), and the third man gives up his money after being asked by Ethan to help out by offering to take her into custody. During the final segment of the finale, Ethan and Beth find a body that Ethan is talking to with Beth. As they enter the body, Ethan sees Beth come to his side (who, surprisingly, seems to not look surprised when Ethan opens the door and tries to convince her to leave). Ethan and Beth then start to realize that it’s Beth who is actually trying to stop Beth from getting what
In Christian views, moral acts of kindness are rewarded. Through Karma, one can acknowledge that there is an order to the world, but it leaves it up to each person whether to exploit it or accept it as the order of life; it can be seen as a natural order, or it could also be seen as a spiritual order. Christs sacrifice cannot relate to reality, and can solely be explained in a spiritual fashion, and because of this many people try to dismiss it. The reason behind this is that what cannot be understood stands as a threat to overcoming ones power. In Ethans case, the morals taught by Christianity in his youth stand in his way of regaining his social status, and so he tries to change them to his needs. What he doesnt realize, however, is that both a natural view and a Christian view of morals work together to create the perception and recognition of right and wrong.
Although Steinbeck shows that he acknowledges the traditional Christian view of morality and corruption, the first scene in which Christianity is introduced portrays it in a negative light. It introduces an alternative side of Christianity, which mirrors the duality of mankind. Just as man has both an outward self, the part that he shows the world, and an inner self, a part that he keeps bottled inside, Christianity can be seen as following a moral savior, yet it can also be seen as following an amoral disturbance. Although there is no right way to look at the situation, it is clear that Steinbeck acknowledges that what is seen as a good action can be seen from a viewpoint which makes it amoral. Suicide and sacrifice is another major difference in the Christian and Roman views. Christians believe that suicide is simply the weakened, defeated way out. It occurs when one loses faith, or refuses to bear life and its hardships. To the Romans,
The Gospel of John
This is the only Gospel of the New Testament where I agree with Steinbeck’s assessment. It is one of the most beautiful readings of Christ’s life and death for the people who have fallen into the cross for Christ’s sake.
While Steinbeck’s critique of the Bible for the modern audience is also about the nature of Jesus, it also seems to ignore His role and mission. I think he knows that because He said, “All men fall, except God and Adam, from the tree of knowledge, but Christ Christ is still a priest, and all God’s will be by one body and Son,” it is clear that he understands that many of the men who take part in Jesus’ ministry are the same men. Although the Book of Revelation is very different from the Old Testament narrative, there are some similarities. The “New Testament” differs from the Old Testament in some interesting ways, a good example being the story of Jonah, which is told in a very negative light, but that is because Jonah’s father became a god, and because his father was so afraid that God would put him under an impiety by creating them.
Steinbeck has the very original idea that Jesus himself was not a human being. Steinbeck suggests that Jesus was “like a lion” who lived in Heaven to provide for his family. This interpretation is, of course, a good one (and probably the first of its kind). The Book of Revelation, though flawed, represents a new and wonderful vision of this man who lived in Heaven to make a home for his people and the people who had died in His place. The God in this story appears to have loved Jesus for the first time and was deeply moved by His testimony to the end of the world. Yet the book itself does not bring the story of Jesus to all of humanity. As Steinbeck suggests, at the beginning of the book God asks Jesus to “get to Heaven.” He did not ask you at the beginning but for the “good in you”—to return to the Father and be worthy of all His children and followers. Yet He tells Jesus that even His life was of no use if you were to take it all back to the Father. Jesus was never a soldier on a battlefield, but he was at war. In the Book of Revelation He was asked for help with this “good deed” and came out unscathed. In later chapters, we see him and his fellow heroes fighting on a mountain, fighting hard to come back to their homes, but to face death or death in hell.
The contrast between the Bible-based interpretation of Jesus’ teachings and the Bible-only interpretation is important to understand. Steinbeck also uses his book to suggest other possible interpretations as well. For instance, in the Gospel of Matthew, Luke 1:39 tells us that there is a “new covenant” on earth, but Jesus takes it upon himself to bring it under the protection of the Father, who did not take it upon himself to do so. In Matthew 21:23 Jesus speaks of the “new covenant,” but does not teach that the one who died took the place of Elijah from the dead, but rather that the new covenant is on the other side, that there must be a second coming of Jesus by the new covenant. As for Matthew 21:23 and 21:41, Luke 2 clearly tells us that Elijah is the first coming. This interpretation of the Jesus message does not tell us who the second coming was, rather that he and Aaron were in the wilderness in “an age of great troubles.” The Bible’s version of the Jesus message tells us that Elijah was already dead and Elijah had died, but at the conclusion Elijah tells Luke, “This is a new covenant and not