Final Conclusions

      One of the central questions we discussed in class on Friday was whether the patient rebellion was worth it, and whether changing the lives of a few individuals really mattered, in view of the larger problems society as a whole faces. This is a rather difficult question to answer, but I have been thinking about it over the weekend so I wanted to give it a shot. Obviously McMurphy thought his cause was worthy, because he sacrificed his life for it, and I think I am on his side. McMurphy did not institute sweeping policy reforms which immediately bettered the lives of all mental patients, but one could hardly expect an ill-connected criminal committed to a mental ward to be able to do such a thing. When you consider who he was (a patient in a mental ward) it is amazing the amount of influence he was able to have. I think McMurphy did the most good that he was able to in his situation. When I look at it that way, I can't say that his efforts were not "worth it," a person's best cannot be unworthy. And then I have to consider the people McMurphy's rebellion affected. Although we don't find out many details, Bromden states that "just three of us were left out of the group that had been on the fishing trip" (321). It seems that the men closest to McMurphy were able to get out from under the thumb of Nurse Ratched and I like to think this means they have made a step towards dealing with their individual issues. If this is the case, then McMurphy succeeded where the Nurse failed, in actually helping the patients to change. What I take from this is that it is more effective to institute change from the bottom up than from the top down. Despite all the rules and restrictions the Nurse imposed from her position of power, she only ever succeeded in subduing the patients to the point where they still had problems, but the problems were not outwardly visible to the Public Relations tours. McMurphy, from the same level as the patients, taught them how to think independently and rebel, which brought a lot of problems to the surface and created a lot of chaos but ultimately, caused some genuine change and healing for the men. Unfortunately, not everyone experienced a positive outcome, as the Nurse points out Billy Bibbit and Charlie Cheswick both died in the course of the rebellion. So just considering whether McMurphy helped anyone (which I think he did) is skirting around the real issue: whether it is justifiable to hurt people in order to help others. This is a tricky question; can I really say that hurting people is ever justifiable? But can I say that the world would have been a better place without McMurphy's rebellion? My immediate answer to both questions is no, but it seems contradictory to answer both questions with no, so how can I reconcile these conflicting answers? The only loophole I can see is that in McMurphy's specific situation; he did not intend to hurt anyone. As far as I can tell, he did not plan on collateral damage, excepting the fact that he eventually realized he would have to sacrifice his own freedom. I could probably spend all night going in circles of logic and moralizing on this point but I'd rather get some sleep, so let's wrap it up. In McMurphy's case, I can forgive him for the loss of life because he did not intend for it to happen, or even foresee it. He unleashed chaos and maybe he should have seen the danger in that, but I think it is unfair to expect a human being to completely understand the complicated string of ramifications which result from their actions. He changed a number of lives for the better and I think that is worthwhile, a change for the better is always worth it, even if it is only a small and imperfect change.