Sir Thomas More To William Roper From A Man For All Seasons

 William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! 

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? 

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! 

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Veganism And Ethics

Note to someone:

You’ve gone quiet on me so I’ll get right to the argument I want to make.

It is that there are some moral ideals of conduct that people can be excused from, and can excuse themselves from, not adhering to. The law captures many, but not all, forms of conduct that we can’t be excused from breaching. So, for example, we should never assault anyone but we can live with, excuse, be ok with ourselves, lying on occasion (if no bad consequences for someone else.) 

So, on this basis, I say veganism is one such ideal of conduct that, generally speaking and admitting of any number of exceptions, people can be excused from not adhering to, given the great chain of being, given our carnivorous nature and urges and given that our entire world in one significant way is organized around consuming animal products. 

Another such form of ideal conduct is giving away what one has beyond reasonable need to the immiserate. It’s simply not in most of us even to approach anything like that let alone more or less achieving it. 

So, just as we, most of us, virtually cannot refrain from consuming animal products, I don’t count that as an ethical breach the way assaulting someone is. Vegans, therefore, deserve our admiration for living according to their principles whereas most people, almost everybody, don’t in respect of veganism,

Where living strictly but reasonably within one’s needs and giving all else away to the immiserate or otherwise dealing with it in a helpful way is relevant is that it’s an answer to vegans who will judge non vegans haughtily, look down on them. 

I’d say if vegans aren’t giving away excess to others, they have no ground on which to look down on non vegans.

So, to drive this to a narrower point, the “ethics” of consuming animal products, save to insist on humane treatment of animals where consumption is a given, save to take protective care of animals facing extinction and save for other like cases, consuming animal products is excusable conduct. It is what we can do without shame or guilt.

Another Another Brief Note On The Many Saints Of Newark, Specifically On Michael Gandolfini’s Portrayal Of Tony Soprano

On The Many Saints Of Newark, a problem with Michael Gandofini as Tony Soprano is there nothing in him or what he does that suggests the larger than life figure who dominates The Sopranos. 

Two data points:

1. Dickie M. heeds Sal M.‘s advice in his, Dickie’s, quest for expiation. Dickie, to try to do a good thing, rebuffs Tony. But then Dickie reverses course and agrees to reconnect with him. Syl convinces Dickie to reconnect on the basis that Tony is a great kid who shows terrific Mafia promise and is the future of their Mafia family; and

2. Tony’s high school counselor tells Olivia that Tony, despite his bad marks, tests as highly intelligent, is a leader and is notably sociable.

But if Tony displays any of those qualities in The Many Saints, then I missed them. 

There are two reasons for this, two reasons for why we’re only told, and not only not shown, but actually shown the opposite:

1. The movie doesn’t give Tony any chance, any situation in which, to embody these sterling qualities; and 

2. Michael Gandolfini is too bland in his portrayal. His acting doesn’t evince any of them.

 

A Few Scattered Notes On The Many Saints Of Newark

The Many Saints Of Newark improves with each viewing. I checked some reviews. The bad ones have a misconception. They say the film suffers for not being an extended series like The Sopranos, for not doing what that series does. 1 

That’s mistakenly criticizing a thing for what it’s not.

The film marries well its connection with the series to being of stand alone quality.

I’d argue it’s seamless and that it’s mistaken to complain the minor characters don’t have the fullness of the series characters. 2 

The criticism that the portrayal of the Newark rioting and the story of Harold McBrayer are a distraction misses the film’s stand alone quality and it’s integrated story lines. There’s no reason it can’t take up race relations in the context of 60s/70s Newark organized crime. 3 

For me, the big weakness in The Many Saints is Michael Gandolfini as Tony Soprano.

His screen impact is negligible, more bland than anything else. 

He’s unaffecting.

For example, his anger at Dickie’s rejection of him is more like a fit of pique than anything deeply felt. 4