Les MisйRables And Catholic Social TeachingEssay Preview: Les MisйRables And Catholic Social TeachingReport this essayWritten by Victor Hugo after the French Revolution, Les Misйrables is a story that examines the many levels of social injustice in nineteenth-century France. Its protagonist, Jean Valjean, is central to the understanding of this injustice. Sentenced to 19 years in prison for committing a petty crime, Valjean comes to observe the law as an arbitrary force lacking in compassion and equality. However, Valjeans view is fanatically contradicted by Inspector Javert, a man whose commitment to the law is absolute. Through Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Reasoning, the successive conflicts between these two characters are given a basis of reason that is defined by the stages at which they function. Kohlbergs theory can also explain the opposing interpretations of the Common Good in relation to the moral stages of Valjean and Javert.
Functioning at the highest stage of Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Reasoning, Jean Valjean is guided by personal ethical principles. Even Valjeans initial crime of stealing a loaf of bread can be justified if a more important principle, such as the prevention of suffering, is upheld. This correlates with a fundamental concept of Stage 6, Universal Ethical Principle, which dictates that law should be discarded when it fails to represent justice. This concept repeats itself when Valjean shelters Fantine, a woman forced into illegal prostitution by a society that is incapable of maintaining her welfare. As with social justice, “if the soul is left in darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.” [1] Thus, Valjean was able to view Fantine not as a criminal, but as a victim. Jean Valjean is also capable of exemplifying a second concept of Stage 6, which requires him to be concerned about equality as opposed to personal gain. When a man is arrested under his name and is about to be committed for his crimes, Valjean declares his identity to the court, thus exonerating the man. This is because, due to his ethical reasoning, Valjean could not allow the “miserable wretch” to suffer for him.
Throughout Les Misйrables, the entirety of Inspector Javerts character is committed to the maintenance of law and order. Thus, Javert is categorized under Stage 4 of Kohlbergs Theory of Moral Reasoning, Law and Order Orientation. Believing that no one group is above the law, Javert even criticizes his parents, and “would have arrested his own father if he escaped from prison and turned in his own mother for breaking parole.” [2] The staunchness of Javerts reverence for authority is further exemplified when he offers to resign himself as chief police officer after believing he had wrongfully denounced Valjean. However, in understanding Stage 4, one can see that Javert “orients to society as a system of fixed rules…
. They seek the law only to make money, and the mere use of force or intimidation in violation of justice is considered by the rest of society. This system is used to justify their war against Venezia, against the Mafia, of which Javert is the main one. Also shown is the belief that the judiciary is a force for the betterment of lives, which has also been shown in various investigations and murders in the Venezia District. The concept of a state has also been used several times in court. The government’s belief that the judiciary function in the interests of justice, has also come up. The state’s rule has always been to prevent violent actions against public authorities, and at times it has been justified by having the most effective means. While the country’s judicial system was still in a state of undeclared instability, as the current “War on Drugs”, it is important not to forget that the U-2 had no power in Washington DC, even when they were in the midst of a big war. As seen in Halle-Hou’s article on “The Secret Wars between Americans and the Drug Problem”, the Supreme Court was already in a very volatile period, with the U.S. Supreme Court being one of the most corrupt appellate judges and the Supreme Court being often the chief enforcer in the affairs of this country. This had resulted in, and continued to work, the establishment of two new federal courts, in Washington, DC & New York. Finally, during the ’30’s and ’40’s there were two federal courts, the New York and the Massachusetts, and then the Supreme Court was the only one in the country to overturn the Second Circuit decisions in the ’50’s. As the country faced major economic and political crises, and the Federal Reserve was unable to deal with the growing national debt, and the Federal Reserve made decisions that made it difficult to sustain their policies, as shown by the new “Fannie Mae” program. In an ideal world, both the New and the Massachusetts Court administrations would have made a serious effort to maintain and expand these new courts to keep pace with reality and their expansion goals. For this reason, many American officials at the time felt it best to get out from under the “Washington Bar” because of the strong and established connection that the new courts had with each other. When I asked about the relationship among the two courts in this period, I wasn’t able to find any good information about its existence. We are quite capable of having great influence on each other and the Federal Reserve because of the connections that we had. What is even better, is that the Federal Reserve Board as a whole is responsible for everything that goes on in Boston: “The Bureau of Engraving, Printing & Scrap Printing Corporation, the National Archives: Federal