Alice & Adolescent Morality

Through The Looking-Glass is the sequel and continuation of what started in Lewis Carrol's book Alice's Adventures In Wonderland. This installation, like the last takes place in a dream that the seven and a half year old Alice embarks on a journey within. Blending some prior existing children's tales (like Humpty Dumpty) as well as tweaking some characters from the prior tales in her fantastical dreamscapes; like the Red Queen who is now no longer from a card deck and squawking "off with their head" left and right, but a chess piece as her royal entity. 

That is however, neither here or there for that I'm getting into regarding this story. What fascinated me the most out of the whole tale is a short discussion of morality which occurred between Alice and the twins Tweedledee and Tweedledum. To young Alice they sung a story about a Walrus and Carpenter which included the two catching oysters and eating them.

"I like the Walrus best," said Alice: "because he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.

"He ate more than the Carpenter, though," said Tweedledee. "You see he held the handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrawise."

"That was mean!" Alice said indignantly. "Then I like the Carpenter best— if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus."

"But he ate as many as he could get," said Tweedledum.

This exploration of Alice's morality can be viewed in a few different ways. As one person I discussed the matter with sees, it depicts indulging and giving into the temptation of greed as initially, the Carpenter doesn't give into the plan orchestrated by the Walrus. Taking from that and Satanically thinking to this; giving into that greed shouldn't be much of an issue. After all, to quote Church of Satan Magistra Templi Rex Blanche Barton: "…how far you go; there are no parameters. You set those parameters by the consequences that you encounter. You can go as you want with drugs or alcohol or sexual escapades or food indulgence, but there are going to be consequences to that. You push yourself out of your comfort zone […] There’s very little guidance; you have to find your own way; there’s a lot of information that will come at you. You have to find your way through that, and it’s not going to say “NO” to you. It’s going to say “Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,” and you have to find your way through that.” It's an interesting form of moralism which is depicted; it's more how Alice judges who she prefers based on who caught the least to eat. It's an interesting sort of moralism; and continuing with the satanic theme may be evocative of the essay by Anton LaVey from The Devil's Notebook, Two Wrongs Make A Right: 

There is no such thing as "moral" Right. There is only true Right, the balance of the Natural Law, Lex Talionis, versus acquired Right, bestowed by popular consensus and usage (the rules of the Game). Morality is a human invention conferred by the self-serving interests of the sensuality impoverished.

 We must constantly confront decisions of whether to live by the Law or by the Rules of the Game. Either way will be "Right." Of the two, I always prefer the way of the Law, but it is often riskier and more brutal. The latter -- beating them at their own game -- requires more planning, time, strategy and money. That's why in all issues enforced by false moralisms and specious Rules of the Game but unfettered by legalities I apply my own rule, which is: "There are no rules."

 

If you create a new rule and it takes hold, you have made a Right for yourself, however self-serving. Whatever prevails, overwhelms, holds in thrall, disarms, terrifies, frightens, controls, constrains, enslaves, or otherwise contributes to man's masochistic needs will always be accepted as Right. No amount of lip service to the contrary can eradicate what the past has proven, and the present intensifies.

Alice is a child though; and as Satanic the mind of a child can be seen as, she doesn't have such a level of comprehension towards such a topic as morality. Where this style of child-like thinking can be seen and explored further, and to a similar degree is later on in Through The Looking-Glass when she is divvying up plum cakes between herself, the Lion, the King and Unicorn only to wind up with none left over for herself. In this interaction the Unicorn displays jealousy at not getting as much a serving of the plum cake as the lion, which is seems a parallel to how Alice weighed in on who was better or worse between the Carpenter and Walrus but in an opposite manner, as she showed preference for the one who caught the least rather than most. Oyster and plum cake, the difference in sustenance is there but in the end it does the same job. However the result in this matter more than for the Oyster, is in the attempt at being fair as a child may do, and in such learn that being so equitable can come to a personal detriment and not have any remaining cake for oneself. There's a virtue to selfishness.