Blindness starts off with a man going blind at a traffic stop. From that starts a chain of others becoming blind too. The thief who stole his car, the doctor he visited, and the patients that were at the doctor’s office also went blind. What was happening seemed to be an epidemic of this mysterious white blindness so the Ministry of Health transferred all these blind people and the ones who came in contact with them to a mental institution. The only answer, in this time of panic, was to put them in quarantine and try to stop the spread. They were completely sealed off from the world they once lived and were left alone to defend for themselves. Do you think this is what our society would do? Is it moral to do such a thing to prevent others from becoming blind? I believe our society would act the same way in a time of panic, but I do not believe that we would just leave the blind to defend for themselves. There would be many people looking for a cure and trying to stop the spread, instead of containing all of the sick and waiting for them to die or kill themselves.
One interesting point in this book was why the blindness is white and not black. It seems as though the people can take in light, but they can not see the objects ahead and no matter how hard they tried, they can never see through the whiteness. In addition, the blindness changed the way the people viewed each other and the objects around them. For example, the people’s names are no longer important, so each person’s meaning and importance is defined by their career or the way they looked. The objects around them have seemed to change because they see them from a different perspective now; only touch. Since their sight is now gone, it seems to me that the people can now see the objects and people for what they truly are.
Another interesting point is that being blind seems to take away the people’s sense of being in control and judging others because they no longer see what is around them. They are very vulnerable now since they lost their sight and they are in an environment where there is no outside help. People can get away with anything here; including murder. The only one who can see is the doctor’s wife, and she feels guilty that she can see because she notices the actions that people do when they think no one is watching. She reminds me of the quote in the beginning of the book, “If you can see, look. If you can look, observe” because she is the only one with sight and has the ability to observe the other’s personal actions. But the question is; would she want to observe? Furthermore, would you rather observe or be blind?
So far, Blindness has brought up many important and interesting situations that I have never thought about before. It has showed how easily society and the people in it can change in a moments notice. Blindness has also showed that we do not observe what is around us as much as we should. We take our sight for granted.
2 comments:
“What was happening seemed to be an epidemic of this mysterious white blindness so the Ministry of Health transferred all these blind people and the ones who came in contact with them to a mental institution. The only answer, in this time of panic, was to put them in quarantine and try to stop the spread. They were completely sealed off from the world they once lived and were left alone to defend for themselves. Do you think this is what our society would do? Is it moral to do such a thing to prevent others from becoming blind?”
- Damien
Following up on Damien’s questions, I believe that yes, indeed, this is what our society would do if a similar solution occurred. Comparing this to a modern day dilemma, let us explore the wrath of the bird flu. If this terrible virus were to attack a number of American citizens, what options would the government have? If it became bad enough, I’m sure they would try to cut off the spread at some point, just how the blindness is being cut off in the novel.
Is it moral? Well, first of all, morals and values are extremely ambiguous terms, and secondly, everyone has their own beliefs on what exactly is moral. In my opinion however, I do not know if one has a moral solution under the given circumstances. Either way it is looked at, the “other” option of not secluding the blind in my opinion is not moral, seeing how healthy people are being endangered of the sickness. For example, look at cancer. If found early enough, the victim has a great chance of survival under one circumstance: the cancer-plagued area of the body must cease to exist. In terms of the victim’s survival, amputation is often a necessary sacrifice. In the novel, perhaps the blind people’s freedom is a necessary sacrifice in terms of the human race’s survival.
If something drastic was to happen in our society today I don't know if the government would really cut off all those people who were contaminated with the disease. Of course it would be important to try and stop the spreading and what not but the way they go about the issue in Blindness is cruel in my opinion. They give them very little food, a tight space to live in, and no connection whatsoever to the outside world. Answering the question about this being moral, I would say no it is not. Everyone has the right to live and I believe that if an epidemic like this did occur, people should have to be separated from the healthy but they should still be treated like human beings. They should recieve plenty of food, be properly sheltered, and should not be shot or killed just because. When reading about how guards try to get them to do something against the rules just so they can shoot them, it floors me. I don't understand how a human could be so cold. But then again I guess all we have to do is look at what is going on in today's society.
Post a Comment