嘉莉妹妹：道德、非道德和无道德的人物形象

Sister Carrie, the protagonist of Theodore Dreisers novel, is a character whose moral compass has sparked debate among readers. Some argue for her morality, while others assert her immorality. However, there are also those who perceive her as amoral. This essay explores the reasons behind the varying interpretations of Sister Carries morality, examining her actions and motivations throughout the novel. The viewpoint put forth here is that Sister Carrie is amoral.

One argument supporting Sister Carries morality is her compassion for those in need. In the novel "Sister Carrie," the character Hurstwood faces a desperate situation towards the end. Struggling financially and emotionally, he becomes destitute and homeless. However, Carrie, having achieved success in her own career, sympathizes with Hurstwoods plight. She extends a helping hand, offering him support and assistance during his time of need. This display of compassion and belief in redemption showcases her strong moral compass.

On the other hand, there are those who argue that Sister Carrie is an immoral figure. The plot reveals that she meets and falls in love with a man named Drouet, but as her ambitions grow, she becomes dissatisfied with their relationship. Carrie is then enticed by the charismatic and wealthy Hurstwood, who is married. She succumbs to the allure of a luxurious lifestyle and enters into a scandalous affair with him. Carries decision to leave her previous partner demonstrates her lack of loyalty and disregard for the consequences of her actions. Moreover, her affair with Hurstwood underscores her immorality, as she knowingly becomes involved with a married man, disregarding the sanctity of marriage.

However, from my perspective, Sister Carrie is not truly moral or immoral, but rather amoral. This viewpoint recognizes that she is a young woman living in a society that prioritizes personal ambition and wealth above all else. In this context, her actions can be seen as a necessary means to an end, rather than a reflection of her moral character. She is not bound by traditional notions of morality, but rather follows her own desires and instincts. Furthermore, it is essential to acknowledge that when a society forces disadvantaged individuals to choose between morality and death or loss of opportunities and future, the problem lies not with the individuals themselves, but with the justice deficit in the social system.

All in all, Sister Carries choices were amoral due to the societal context at the time. Without understanding the individual circumstances behind her actions, it becomes challenging to pass moral judgments, and it is inappropriate to use moral standards to scrutinize Sister Carrie. Ultimately, the debate over Sister Carries morality is complex, lacking a simple answer. However, it is worth noting that Dreiser himself referred to her as an "amoral" character, suggesting that he saw her actions as falling outside the realm of traditional moral values.

In conclusion, it is crucial to examine Carries actions in "Sister Carrie" within the social context in which she existed. While some argue that Carrie exhibited immoral behavior by leaving her former lover and engaging in an affair with a married man, it is essential to recognize that her choices were influenced by societal inequalities and flaws in the social system of that time. Carries pursuit of a better life and her willingness to make compromises can be seen as responses to the injustices and inequities she faced. Rather than solely attributing blame to Carries moral compass, it is vital to acknowledge the systemic factors that shaped her decisions. In philosophical research, we often underestimate the impact of nature. The sound of the wind has no place in our logical thinking. The powerful response to the call of being an upright person is the pain of hunger. The influence of the harsh climate is subtly yet significant. By understanding the societal influences on her choices, we can begin to question and address the larger issues of social injustice and the flawed distribution of resources. Instead of condemning Carrie, it is better to focus on addressing the root causes of her actions, namely social distributive injustice, where society unilaterally values the principle of contribution of procedural justice and ignores the principle of compensation for compensatory justice, ultimately striving to build a more just and equitable society.