COM 614 Reflection #1 9-16- 2010!

Liz Horgan Page 1

The Good as identified from different perspectives, the absence of communication and

questions.

Looking at Les Miserables for an example of ethics concepts I gravitated to

Javert and Jean Valjean. The two characters had competing “goods”: Javert’s “good”

was to uphold the law and to make sure justice was carried out. He was dogged, single

minded, and never reflective about his “good”, it was absolute, unchanging until the very

end. Javert was a contrast to Jean Valjean. Jean Valjean grew from a poor wretch to a

thief and became hardened through experience and circumstance. This changed after

his encounters with the Bishop and Petit Gervais. Jean Valjean, through interactions

and reflection changed his sense of being and purpose, he began to devote his life to

the “good” of others. For Jean, out of several wrongs had come a man who wanted to

help others, to give to those in need, to sacrifice himself if need be for love or “right, and

to “be” good.

Both Javert and Jean Valjean were pursuing their “good” and trying to live their

own “good” lives. Because understanding and application of a “good” finds shape

through living, both of the characters were examples of different “goods”. In isolation,

Javert is admirable. He promotes justice and protects/upholds society’s laws. Jean

Valjean does “good” for many as he promotes opportunities for the poor and works

toward his own form of justice by helping lift up a town/the people and the area through

work in M sur M.

However, Javert’s “good” ends up competing with Jean Valjean’s. Javert pursues

Jean Valjean relentlessly, for what seem to us in 2010 to be minor “crimes”. Jean

Valjean paid for his initial sins according to civil laws by going to jail, and lived the rest of
COM 614 Reflection #1 9-16- 2010! Liz Horgan Page 2

his life attempting to pay for his last sins according to spiritual/religious practices by

doing “good” at every opportunity. The story, Les Miserables, begs the question of

whose or what justice, what “good” can prevail. The law? Societal “good”? God’s law?

Power also plays into this, giving added weight to certain points of view. In the early

1800’s, law and religion were powerful, where the poor, the individual, held less sway.

Interesting how this changes over time, and in different cultures.

When the two “good”s are brought together, as our book Communication Ethics

Literacy points out, there can be disagreements, and one can no longer be confident in

knowing the common “good”. The two “goods” of Javert and Jean Valjean collide and

continue to compete destructively until finally Javert reflects on all of the deeds of Jean

Valjean and awakens to new possibilities of “good”. Unfortunately, Javert cannot live

with the ambiguity and his learning, so he ends his life.

Finally, in the end, communication, and a willingness to learn, occurs in Les

Miserables. For most of the book, action takes the place of dialog between the

adversaries. Actions are subject to interpretation, and only through communicative

interaction can understandings be developed. Without communication and real listening

of other perspectives, there is only telling, and no real learning.

The story Les Miserables and characters of Javert and Jean Valjean illustrate the

idea of competing “goods” and the ultimate value of communication and dialog when it

comes to ethics. It raises such questions as: does it matter how one gets their “good”?

does one have to always be “good” in order to be “good”, or can someone who was not

“good” become “good” and thus have equal measure? Who’s “good” is “good”? What

is justice, and whose justice prevails? What happens when “good”s collide? With all of
COM 614 Reflection #1 9-16- 2010! Liz Horgan Page 3

these questions, I see there are no concrete answers, rather it is instructive to see that

there is subjectivity and circumstance that will always affect ethics in this time of discord

and disagreements.