Pulp Fiction and Prescription Drugs

CZ's post comes at a really interesting time.

Most specifically, I happened to be finishing up another viewing of Pulp Fiction as I read it. We were on the last sequence in the diner, where Jules has decided leave the organized crime business so that he may "walk the earth, like Caine in Kung Fu." His partner Vincent is critical of this mindset and says the people Jules is describing are nothing more than bums who beg for change, live in dumpsters and eat what the rest of us throw away. But by this point of the film, we have already seen what happens to Vincent, and how Jules' insight almost certainly saved him from being slain in Butch's apartment along with his partner. It appears Quentin Tarrantino shares your opinion of right brain thinking.

Also, I have been getting clobbered for the past few weeks by one of my new courses: Behavioral Research. Something I have picked up is the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research. All of science is based on quantitative research, which appears to work beautifully on concepts in nature, mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. But I'm discovering that the human condition is so much richer than those things, it's just not sensible to use quantitative (questionnaires, ratings scales, removing the researcher from the process completely) research only to study people. If you really want to understand what people are like, you need to incorporate qualitative research as well, where you learn about the perspective of the person or social group you are studying in order to find out more about what questions you should be asking.

I think our culture's intense focus on "serious" non-artistic academic subjects comes from a mistaken focus on the quantitative side of measuring human progress. Sure, you can measure the scientific achievements easier, but art has the capacity to better our society in a less measurable but much richer way.

This conflict is a big deal in my music therapy program. You see psychologists throwing different drug cocktails at patients instead of taking the time to really talk to (or hey, play music with) the person and actually address the root of the trouble. The drugs just alleviate the symptoms, but between the measurable amounts of drugs (quantitative) and being able to decrease the number of days the person is under care (quantitative), drugs are still the priority of the people with the greatest influence over the mental health community. Bummer.

A quick word on utilitarianism: I dismissed utilitarianism pretty much right when I learned about it. I think the trouble is that utilitarianism is fundamentally incapable of judging the human experience on the individual level (the only way it is experienced) and only focuses on the group level. If you took $100 from everyone in a city, but handed over double the total amount to the wealthiest person, it could be argued that you have increased the overall good (in dollars) in the community, even though this act would be almost 100% unpopular.

More practically, it always seems like the person deciding on what the "good" is, is always some kind of psychotic person with terribly unethical ideas (Like killing 100 homeless people! Kidding!). Hitler decided the holocaust would be beneficial for the general good, using principles of utilitarianism.

As far as the question, I'm going to completely cop out and opt to spread the hurt. Let's give all 108 people (was that a hidden LOST reference?) 1/36 of a fatal beating.