Monday, 31 October 2005

Child Molesters are just unlucky

I hate self-aggrandizing, holier than thou public interest law students. I find that these people feel superior to those of us following the biglaw route, and chasing the biglaw money. It’s as though they assume that serving the poor or disenfranchised is in some way morally superior to serving big corporations. I am of the opinion that no one is for any reason ever truly morally superior to another.

A child molester for instance is not morally inferior to some hippy member of the Berkeley law foundation. My reasoning for the foregoing statement is that nobody does anything that they don’t want to do, unless they are actually coerced into acting. Public service oriented people do public service because that is what makes them happy. They are lucky that they have been programmed to enjoy an activity which society deems to be admirable. Child molesters, on the other hand, are cursed with a compulsion to act in a way which society deems (rightfully so) to be illegal and repulsive. Child molesters are doomed to live life sexually unfulfilled. Who is the superior being? The law student who does public service because that is how they get their jollies, or the child molester who manages to control their urges, thereby living an incomplete life? What about the child molester who once succumbs to his urges, and then never again? Can that person be deemed morally superior to the law student who compulsively helps others like a crack addicted rat in a cage? I think that he might. There are no moral absolutes; just because I am programmed to like plasma televisions, fast cars, and fine vintage port does not make me less of a person.

My point is that you can wipe that superior smile right off your fucking face. You know who you are.

No comments:

Post a Comment