P3+CMendez

Right, Wrong, and Injustice
In an involute society, individuals are contrived into making arduous decisions. The exigency of these decisions arise from the question of, right and wrong. In John Steinbeck’s, The Grapes of Wrath, Henry David Thoreau’s, Civil Disobedience, and Lars Eighner’s, Dumpster Diving, the authors attempt to convey their arguments regarding how an individual goes about adjudicating right from wrong. The authors also attempt to argue what an individual’s role is in confronting injustices. Through their use of character behavior, and various scenarios, they argue that an individual arbitrates right from wrong, by simply forging their decisions based on what would most benefit them in their current situation. Regarding an individuals role in confronting an injustice, the authors point out that it is up to the individual to keep their moral ground, and to fight the inferential injustice.

Ethics, and morality are subjective; This statement is found to be veracious in Steinbeck’s novel. Stealing, and thievery is typically determined to be morally wrong. But as extenuating circumstances in Steinbeck’s novel become appalling, a change can be perceived. “ Then the hungry men crowded the alleys behind the stoves to beg for bread, to cringe and to beg for rotten vegetables, to steal when they could.” (Ch. 29) What is evident here is the deterioration of old standards, and the newly established dominance of the need for conformity. Due to the vicissitude of their environment, the men are compelled to change. They originally held the idea of stealing at a low standard, but because of the asperity of their environment, they begin to steal in order to survive. Survival is the top priority, and because of that fact, stealing is not seen as, “bad,” in this situation. “But where does it stop? Who can we shoot? I don’t aim to starve to death before I kill the man that’s starving me.” (Ch. 5) Once again, the need for conformity is evident here. Simply because of their need to survive, they are willing to murder in order to do so. Murder is, “right,” in this situation, because it is in the person’s best interest, to survive. “…works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price” (Ch. 25) In order to make a profit, the rich in Steinbeck’s novel, find it necessary to destroy much needed food supplies. Although the poor are starving, those whom sell the produce still destroy the food. This is considered to be wrong to poor, because it does not serve them. To the rich however, because the option serves their self-interest, it is not seen as iniquitous. “Well, I don't know- Now, look here. I'm givin' you my shirt, an' you took all this time. I might a made three sales…” (Ch. 7) Here, again, “right,” being defined in the context of its environment. Due to harsh reality of it, the dealer must protect his own self-interest. He does this by ripping-off others. The reader is forced to be empathetic with the dealer, simply because the dealer is only doing what he must, in order to survive.

The question of what is right and wrong, is also debated in the social fabric of our civilization. “While Lizbeth [Eighner's dog] and I were still living in the shack on Avenue B as my savings ran out, I put almost all my sporadic income into rent. The necessities of daily life I began to extract from Dumpsters.” (Dumpster Diving) Eating out of a dumpster is considered to be disgusting. So much so, that it may even be considered wrong by some; Hence why the majority of people do not eat out of a dumpster. Again, this is considered to be all right to Eighner, because he was in a position of need. In order to survive, he needed to eat out of a dumpster.

Injustices can only be taken for so long. When people suffer too long under an injustice, they will fight back. “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” (Civil Disobedience: Part 1) Thoreau knew this to be true. Should one examine history, this statement becomes a fact. For example, the U.S was born out of anger from the tyranny being implemented by the British. “Why do they not dissolve it themselves — the union between themselves and the State — and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury?” (Civil Disobedience: Part 2) Thoreau clearly advocates action. He believed that if you do not like something, change it. In this case he advocates not paying your taxes, in order to change something. In Grapes of Wrath, the fighting back of injustice, comes in the form of flight. “And the migrants streamed in on the highway and their hunger was in their eyes, and their need was in their eyes.” (The Grapes of Wrath Chapter 21) The migrants, seeing they could not get jobs, attempted to solve their problem by looking some where else. Although it may not seem much of a fight, it is a start. Instead of choosing to remain in their horrible conditions, they left in search of better lives. Should enough workers banded together, they may have been able to put up a good fight, much like worker unions today.

In conclusion, people’s judgment of what is right and wrong, will always be based upon what serves them best in their give environment. When it comes to injustices, they will fight to keep what they believe to be right.