Jeff Johansen

3/1/2017

The Place of Law

Within a dystopia exist many utopian dreams. Each and every individual longs for life

without fear, or for life without the creation of the dystopia itself. This is naturally true, quite

obviously, but what do these dreamers truly do to reverse their lives and enter the utopia of their

wildest imaginations. The actions of these righteous people always seems to be quite

interesting. In our everyday hateful society, most people know where to draw the metaphorical

line that defines the difference between right and wrong. They understand when and where

they cannot act and follow those self-defined rules. This is, in other words, what we call morality,

or the choice of morality. All of the characters in Butlers Parable of the Sower seem to identify

with this struggle. It is a thought that invades their minds, captivates their thoughts and

ultimately serves as the rope that holds their mental sanity anchored in place. Throughout the

story, there are many moments when Lauren and her community family have admitted to

breaking the laws in their corrupt world, yet the police are rarely called.Through these actions,

Butler shows on countless occasions that the presence of morality is crucial in a place without

law and order. This sense of morality helps the citizens of the community remain together, as a

single unit.

Laurens father owns a 9 millimeter automatic. All automatic weapons are illegal but he

still owns one and the people in the community are aware of it. Her father has different

intentions than many of the people on the outside, though. He will only use it against people in

self defense, not in any action of malicious intent. His son, however, uses the same type of
firepower but with a slightly altered motive. Keith goes out beyond the walls of the community

and kills for money. Lauren seems to believe that he is somehow involved in the sale of drugs,

twisted into the ways of their broken world but he never admits to that. Keith does admit to

killing for the mere reason to kill or to take someones possessions. When talking about a man

he murdered who was headed to Alaska he said Doesn't it even bother you that you took

someone's life-- you killed a man? He seemed to think about that for a while. Then he shook his

head. It don't bother me. he said.(101). He chooses to use his illegal weapons to demonize

the people. It is likely possible for him to take the possessions of many of his victims without

also taking their lives, but he seems more interested in getting high off of his own power by

taking lives. His law breaking is committed without the presence of morality. One might say that

Keith has no morals, and as such is a menace to the society they live in. Luckily for the world, it

catches up to him. These two examples, ironically from the same family, are radically different.

The father uses his gun for good, to protect himself, his family and his community. His son uses

the automatic weapon for the sole purpose of killing. Is there a difference between both of these

criminals? According to the law, absolutely not. They are both guilty of possessing an illegal

weapon. But then to look at the law, the police have the right to kill or steal, murder or rape and

no one is ever reprimanded. Yes, the son would likely have other charges (murder, assault,

larceny among other things) but due to the possession of the gun, they are the same in the eyes

of the law. Is this how the nation should be governed even if the laws are broken for the sole

purpose of helping people. The father is a man of morals, as he is a pasteur, and his choices

reflect this truth. He uses morality to govern his decisions internally, thus providing for the

community as a strong leader. It is possible to break the law for good, as proven by the father,

provided that good morality is the bearer of decision. At the risk of taking an evident political
stand, it is obvious that there is a clear difference between both characters. To break a law for

the sake of protecting others is a righteous movement, one that should be honored.

The amount of death that Butler pulled from her mind and placed on the pages of this

world seems massive, yet many of the characters take it upon themselves to kill more.

Specifically Lauren, where in a moment of pain she enters an ethical dilemma with the other two

current members of her raggedy group. The idea of death in our current world seems quite

similar to those who live in the community: horrifying. Just a few days into Lauren, Harry and

Zahras journey, they are attacked in the middle of the night by two unarmed drug addicts. They

may have been unarmed, but they were acting with the intent to kill as one of them was fighting

harry over the gun and he was losing [...], the muzzle was being forced to him. (Butler 173).

Soon after, Lauren strikes the man (and herself) down with a rock blow straight to the back of

his head. Upon finding that he is not dead, Lauren finds herself in a dilemma.She knows that

she needs to kill him, else she will soon feel all of his pain, but Harry is mortified at the idea of

her taking the life of another person. Lauren, with a sharp blade, chooses to take the life of the

druggie by slicing his neck right in front of her two traveling partners. This isnt murder, nor is it

wrong for her to kill in this place. Harry argues that he could have survived, yet he does not

seem to understand at what cost. He is right, the man could have survived, but a head wound

like that would have made Lauren a burden on the group and could give them a survival

likeness similar to that of the addicts (none). This man attempted to murder the group, and in

doing so created a situation where his survival meant the likely death of the three companions.

Lauren was right to break the law, because of her hyperempathy and simply because that man

had tried to kill them and would have, given the chance. Even though it seems like that choice to

kill didnt really have a moral to it, I believe it did, as dark and twisted as it may be. By putting

the druggie out of his misery, she saved him and herself from any prolonged pain and saved her
group from the possibility of imminent death. Throughout the series, Lauren, Harry, Zahra and

others end up killing a number of people. The difference between them and the people they kill

is intention. None of them seem to want to kill, they kill to save themselves from being killed. In

an act of self defense, it is morally right to kill. Amidst all of the unnecessary death, its funny

that some surviving citizens are still in the right to take more lives.

Throughout the book, the characters dabble in the art of stealing from other humans. I

say art, as many people (Keith included) see it as that, but in all truth it is nothing more than a

crime. At an early point in their road trip, Zahra steals some peaches for the trio to eat and starts

a debate between all three of them. When Laurned discusses the idea of stealing she says I

hope it won't ever mean getting caught or leaving someone else to starve, I said. And to my

own surprise, I smiled. I've thought about it. That's the way I feel, but I've never stolen

anything." (158). Lauren sees stealing as an act to keep her group afloat, but it is not right for

her to do so. To steal is never right. Many people would use the argument that it is okay to steal

from someone whose goods or possessions are stolen, and that they are avenging those that

have been robbed. This argument is no different than saying I am going to eat the food that

was robbed from you to avenge the actions taken upon you. As silly as that statement seems, it

correlates directly with the given argument. To steal is wrong, and it is not a morally correct

action against the law. To condense it down to a single statement: stealing from someone who

has stolen is no different than stealing from someone who has not. The only action that could be

taken (that aligns with stealing) that would be a morally correct act against the law would be to

return stolen things to the rightful owner. Unfortunately this kind of action seems to have

disappeared from Butlers world almost entirely.

Laws are for criminals. An interesting statement at that, one that no doubt will be

attacked and disregarded on its own without any act of defense. It is easy to say that if laws are
 for criminals then laws apply to no one person therefore there are no criminals. Barring this

mindless, immediate denial, there is something more to this statement. A nation should not

prevent its people from bending to the will of criminals. If a person is a criminal, there is nothing

stopping them from purchasing an automatic weapon, just as Keith did and raining terror on the

innocent lives around him. The people around him are at an immediate disadvantage because

of the fact that they are innocent. They do not own any illegal weapons and are immediately

less powerful than the criminals who own the better, stronger weapons. In many senses, laws

give criminals more power than they would have ordinarily had. Laws are for criminals. Many

actions are illegal, but to own something, be it firepower or anything at all, and to use it with

good intent and sound morality to prevent crime and level the playing field between criminals

and civilians should never be illegal.

Butler, Octavia e. Parable of the sower: a novel. 1st ed., New York, Four Walls Eight Windows Publishers, 1999.