What does it mean to be "Only Human?"
by , 01-06-2012 at 05:58 PM (2125 Views)
One thing which I encounter quite frequently in literary experiences and which has always baffled me, is that it seems whenever a character within a book commits an act which is morally questionable, people are quick to forgive them or excuse them on the basis that they are "only human" or see thier misdeeds as as proof of thier humanity. I have never really understand this mode of thinking.
Now I do not think that characters should all be portrayed as being perfect as this would be uninterested and unrealistic, but when a character does act in a questionable way, do they not deserve to earn our judgement, scorn, disapproval, instead of being defended for it on the grounds of thier being human?
How can any misdeed, transgression, indiscretion, mistake, bad behavior, be rendered completely excusable or acceptable, purely based upon ones "humanness?"
Is this ever a viable/acceptable excuse in our real life experiences?
If someone wrongs us in some grievous way do we just let it go, and believe they should be completely excused and forgiven purely on the account of thier being human?
And where is the line drawn? How do we decide what offences can be or should be forgiven on the grounds of one being "only human" and when do we decide that in spite of thier being human thier actions still deserve condemnation?
I often get accused of being too judgemental, or too black and white in my literary discussion becasue of my staunch disapproval of the actions and behaviors of characters in books.
And people always pull that "they are only human" line on me and I always wonder, but how does that make what they did ok?



