I have only one question for you tonight, and it draws heavily upon the question that Madeleine asked at the end of class: do the guards deserve the flogging, and, if so, is it an acceptable punishment?
I believe that the guards deserve a punishment, however I think they deserve a punishment less severe than the flogging. I do think the guards were disrespectful towards K., especially when they ate his breakfast and attempted to steal his clothes. During the flogging scene, the guards try to guilt K. into thinking that he was wrong to complain about their behavior. Their persuasion works, as K. feels guilty, however nothing seems to be able to stop the flogger from hurting these guards. Although the guards make K. feel at fault, I don't think that K. should feel blamed for the guards' brutal flogging. K. only complained about the guards' behavior, but he did not initiate the plan to flog the guards. I believe that K. wanted the guards to be punished in some way, but he never intended for a punishment as harsh as flogging. Also, the guards never physically hurt K., so I don't believe that they deserve such a cruel punishment. Therefore, I don't believe that flogging is an acceptable punishment for the guards.
I think that the guards did deserve a punishment because they had commited a crime of stealing K.'s food and clothes. Kafka attempts to make the reader feel sympathetic about the guards, however they are not innocent in their actions. I do believe that the action of flogging the guards as a punishment was too harsh. It is not an acceptable punishment. K, as an excuse, thinks that he was unable to cease the flogging because Franz screamed, but I believe that K. should have tried more in attempting to prevent the flogging.
I believe the guards' actions warranted a punishment, but flogging was too harsh. Attempting to steal K's clothes and eat his breakfast was a crime, but a relatively petty one (in my opinion). Though the flogging was an inhumane punishment, I believe this was supposed to teach K a lesson, as much as the guards. I think that the severe beating was set up by the Law, specifically for K. to see. Seeing the incident along with the guards' pleas, tormented him psychologically, since he felt guilty and responsible for the punishment. Though K wasn't really responsible, I believe this was simply another trial the Law was putting him through.
I'm still not convinced that this wasn't a staged performance intended to test, or simply mess with, Josef K. (why else would it be in his own workplace, in a place and time that he'd find it? What could then explain why it was reset, a perfect copy, the next day?) but in the event it was really happening, they absolutely didn't deserve it. Eating someone's breakfast while you inform them of their arrest is certainly strange, and not something a guard should do, but it shouldn't have been met so abruptly with so much force. They could have just been fired, or reassigned, but instead we have physical repercussions. Why weren't they given a trial? Are members of the court not given trials? If so, how many people agreed that a secret flogging in a junk room of the workplace of the informant was a proportional, or even a possible repercussion? Whose idea even was this? So yes, there should be repercussions for such invasive and informal behavior, but not a flogging - I'd file this whole situation under "cruel and unusual punishment."
The guards have committed a crime. As such, in organized society, they must be punished. In living in a society, we agree to live with a certain set of pre-established morals. This unspoken agreement between citizens is what keeps a society functioning. In order to make a society official, these morals are made into laws that the majority of the population agrees on. That's why laws exist: to keep people from doing things that we generally see as morally impermissible. The organization of this nation is not known to the reader, but assuming there is a set of morals that people are expected to live by, stated or not, people who act against these morals must be punished. This punishment can range from rehabilitating the victim to rehabilitating the criminal to publicly shaming the criminal. The form of punishment theoretically matches with the crime. I believe that flogging is a harsh punishment for stealing food and trying to steal clothes, but I am not a member of this society. They may have a very strong moral aversion (as a group, not necessarily individuals) to theft, in which case, flogging may be appropriate. I think a better question to ask is, is this punishment inflicted because of the morals of the society as a whole or because the court gets satisfaction out of seeing people punished? The answer to this question: I am not sure. In a morally upstanding society, it would be the former. In this society, however, I lean toward the latter. In short, yes, I think they should be punished. No, I don't think flogging would be appropriate in our society, but it may be appropriate in theirs, depending on their moral code.
I suppose the guards deserve to be punished since they did break rules. However, flogging is too harsh of a punishment. Also, it isn't as if they are flogged and set free, but rather they must endure this flogging for an extended period of time and then be demoted to a position worse than the one they were in before. The court has an odd sense of right and wrong. The institution the guards are a part of punish stealing, but not trading someone's wife from person to person. The punishment is so extreme I think it would be more appropriate that they went unpunished than they endure the flogging.
The guards deserved to be punished because they violated the rules. It's one thing to be a jerk but it's another to abuse one's power. The guards, even though they were just lowly employees in the court system, exercised the authority they had over the people they were arresting in a corrupted manner. Therefore, yes, they deserve to be punished. However, I don't think that flogging is the appropriate punishment. They have just gotten fired or demoted ; there's no need for excessive physical punishment. Of course, I don't know what the moral code is in K.'s world so I'm making these judgments based on the moral code that I'm familiar with. Most of the things that has happened in the court system is very bizarre from K.'s arrest to the initial inquiry to the washer woman ordeal to this, the flogging. For there to be justice and fairness, those that committed crimes should be punished but it is also the responsibility of the law system to appropriately conduct investigations and punishments, which in my eyes, the court system in K.'s world is failed to do.
While the guards abuse their place of authority and break the law by stealing meals and clothes, their punishment is disproportionate to their crimes. Willem states that “guards are forbidden to act that way of course” (81), indicating that the court stipulates against these behaviors. However, Willem and Franz’s transgressions against the terms of their employment should only justify their dismissal from the job, not bodily harm. By beating the guards instead of simply firing them, the court exempts itself from conventional social codes of conduct.
While it's true that the guards have broken a rule, it is unjust for the courts to punish them or threaten them with bodily harm. Usually, when an employee breaks a rule they are either fired or demoted. The guards were employees who broke a rule and thus should have been fired at the very most. A line is crossed when employees are physically hurt as "punishment" by their employer. The line blurs between worker and property, as the employer exercises physical power over his employees body and not his actual work. So, I agree that the guards deserved punishment, however the flogging was completely inappropriate and morally questionable.
I believe that the guards deserve a punishment, however I think they deserve a punishment less severe than the flogging. I do think the guards were disrespectful towards K., especially when they ate his breakfast and attempted to steal his clothes. During the flogging scene, the guards try to guilt K. into thinking that he was wrong to complain about their behavior. Their persuasion works, as K. feels guilty, however nothing seems to be able to stop the flogger from hurting these guards. Although the guards make K. feel at fault, I don't think that K. should feel blamed for the guards' brutal flogging. K. only complained about the guards' behavior, but he did not initiate the plan to flog the guards. I believe that K. wanted the guards to be punished in some way, but he never intended for a punishment as harsh as flogging. Also, the guards never physically hurt K., so I don't believe that they deserve such a cruel punishment. Therefore, I don't believe that flogging is an acceptable punishment for the guards.
ReplyDeleteI think that the guards did deserve a punishment because they had commited a crime of stealing K.'s food and clothes. Kafka attempts to make the reader feel sympathetic about the guards, however they are not innocent in their actions. I do believe that the action of flogging the guards as a punishment was too harsh. It is not an acceptable punishment. K, as an excuse, thinks that he was unable to cease the flogging because Franz screamed, but I believe that K. should have tried more in attempting to prevent the flogging.
ReplyDeleteI believe the guards' actions warranted a punishment, but flogging was too harsh. Attempting to steal K's clothes and eat his breakfast was a crime, but a relatively petty one (in my opinion). Though the flogging was an inhumane punishment, I believe this was supposed to teach K a lesson, as much as the guards. I think that the severe beating was set up by the Law, specifically for K. to see. Seeing the incident along with the guards' pleas, tormented him psychologically, since he felt guilty and responsible for the punishment. Though K wasn't really responsible, I believe this was simply another trial the Law was putting him through.
ReplyDeleteI'm still not convinced that this wasn't a staged performance intended to test, or simply mess with, Josef K. (why else would it be in his own workplace, in a place and time that he'd find it? What could then explain why it was reset, a perfect copy, the next day?) but in the event it was really happening, they absolutely didn't deserve it. Eating someone's breakfast while you inform them of their arrest is certainly strange, and not something a guard should do, but it shouldn't have been met so abruptly with so much force. They could have just been fired, or reassigned, but instead we have physical repercussions. Why weren't they given a trial? Are members of the court not given trials? If so, how many people agreed that a secret flogging in a junk room of the workplace of the informant was a proportional, or even a possible repercussion? Whose idea even was this? So yes, there should be repercussions for such invasive and informal behavior, but not a flogging - I'd file this whole situation under "cruel and unusual punishment."
ReplyDeleteThe guards have committed a crime. As such, in organized society, they must be punished. In living in a society, we agree to live with a certain set of pre-established morals. This unspoken agreement between citizens is what keeps a society functioning. In order to make a society official, these morals are made into laws that the majority of the population agrees on. That's why laws exist: to keep people from doing things that we generally see as morally impermissible. The organization of this nation is not known to the reader, but assuming there is a set of morals that people are expected to live by, stated or not, people who act against these morals must be punished. This punishment can range from rehabilitating the victim to rehabilitating the criminal to publicly shaming the criminal. The form of punishment theoretically matches with the crime. I believe that flogging is a harsh punishment for stealing food and trying to steal clothes, but I am not a member of this society. They may have a very strong moral aversion (as a group, not necessarily individuals) to theft, in which case, flogging may be appropriate. I think a better question to ask is, is this punishment inflicted because of the morals of the society as a whole or because the court gets satisfaction out of seeing people punished? The answer to this question: I am not sure. In a morally upstanding society, it would be the former. In this society, however, I lean toward the latter. In short, yes, I think they should be punished. No, I don't think flogging would be appropriate in our society, but it may be appropriate in theirs, depending on their moral code.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the guards deserve to be punished since they did break rules. However, flogging is too harsh of a punishment. Also, it isn't as if they are flogged and set free, but rather they must endure this flogging for an extended period of time and then be demoted to a position worse than the one they were in before. The court has an odd sense of right and wrong. The institution the guards are a part of punish stealing, but not trading someone's wife from person to person. The punishment is so extreme I think it would be more appropriate that they went unpunished than they endure the flogging.
ReplyDeleteThe guards deserved to be punished because they violated the rules. It's one thing to be a jerk but it's another to abuse one's power. The guards, even though they were just lowly employees in the court system, exercised the authority they had over the people they were arresting in a corrupted manner. Therefore, yes, they deserve to be punished. However, I don't think that flogging is the appropriate punishment. They have just gotten fired or demoted ; there's no need for excessive physical punishment. Of course, I don't know what the moral code is in K.'s world so I'm making these judgments based on the moral code that I'm familiar with. Most of the things that has happened in the court system is very bizarre from K.'s arrest to the initial inquiry to the washer woman ordeal to this, the flogging. For there to be justice and fairness, those that committed crimes should be punished but it is also the responsibility of the law system to appropriately conduct investigations and punishments, which in my eyes, the court system in K.'s world is failed to do.
ReplyDeleteWhile the guards abuse their place of authority and break the law by stealing meals and clothes, their punishment is disproportionate to their crimes. Willem states that “guards are forbidden to act that way of course” (81), indicating that the court stipulates against these behaviors. However, Willem and Franz’s transgressions against the terms of their employment should only justify their dismissal from the job, not bodily harm. By beating the guards instead of simply firing them, the court exempts itself from conventional social codes of conduct.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true that the guards have broken a rule, it is unjust for the courts to punish them or threaten them with bodily harm. Usually, when an employee breaks a rule they are either fired or demoted. The guards were employees who broke a rule and thus should have been fired at the very most. A line is crossed when employees are physically hurt as "punishment" by their employer. The line blurs between worker and property, as the employer exercises physical power over his employees body and not his actual work. So, I agree that the guards deserved punishment, however the flogging was completely inappropriate and morally questionable.
ReplyDelete