(As Officer keeps Prisoner No. 12 company while 12’s barred from yard-time, Officer gives a letter he snuck out from the clanging cage of the Warden)

Officer: I have a letter for you.

Prisoner No. 12: (aloud) Dear Man-I-do-not-know,

What I write here does not follow from what you say in your letter but understand that I appreciate your thoughts there even if I currently have no responses to them. However, I wish to make a point concerning this assertion you make concerning good and evil. It seems you are heading for a justification of principle based on amount of suffering seen. Such justifications defeat themselves. If you talk about people suffering and this becomes the justification for a certain principle or course of action, what you inevitably say is those others who in the future will suffer from your choice have a justified suffering. That is contradiction even though, it is potential contradiction. Nevertheless, look at those who will not be favored by your principle, are you saying they are justified in suffering? *Scoff*

So many contradictions but Ethics always thinks so much of itself because it thinks it is the native symbol of man, even it’s other names tell you something – humanistic..*scoff* All to make the logical man lose favor – against your own principles of fair play. However, here, you have seen your beloved principle betrayed and flayed by it’s own self. You see, this is where hubris gets you. All you ethical men are cheats, using your sweet words to gain ascendancy in the world – ingratiation. Pander – you just preach to the choir, you say nothing.

Ethics has to be judged by Logic. That is a baseline, that is a supreme standard. Take it or leave it.

Yours, From an ignorant position.

(Prisoner No. 12’s laughter at the letter gallops down the cellblock)

Ahh..a man after my heart. Just look at the several sarcastic statements he makes. (He shakes his head, smiling). Let’s get to repaying him already. Do you…?

Officer: The typewriter’s in the janitor’s, I’ll get it in a sec.

(He dashes around the block to the janitor’s)

No. 12: (dictating) Dear Son of the architect of our dear penitentiary,

Your comments make me smile. I see what you are saying but have you considered that such brute logic defeats itself. Oh! You blind men, you always want to turn away from the colorful world to something abstract rather than the sweet scent of Nature that swirls about you like the whisper of a lover…and we whisper back with fervent feeling. (clicks his tongue to savor the emotion).

Mind, however that, I made no assertion, those were just speculations.

I really do not see why you too do not see that your beloved Logic is defeated by itself. In fact, it is not fathomless that it be so as it is only blind men who populate that troupe – a troupe with eyes gouged out, skin peeled off and pyramid of eyes and meat rolling on a trolley behind it – ah, so you lot are spiders? can’t believe it, with all your great learning, you are just lowly arachnids.

Logic must be assessed by Ethics. It must needs be this way. (Since you say ethical people say nothing, I am mimicking them so I stand in solidarity with them by repeating myself for feeling effect). How else? can you condone the suffering of people just because it accords with some intangible, ghostly, principle? I know that you will say that this does not matter anything and is just as you said. You exposed the Ethical principle’s flaws, I agree with these arguments and they are part of what make me laugh so heartily. It is a thought I like to have as part of this grannd scheme of things that I like to call “in my head”.

In order to make my case as clearly as possible since you blind men already are more foggy than cataracts, I will start my case again.

You exposed the Ethical principle’s flaws, by showing me how it is not logical as well as not ethical, quite incredibly remarkable..wow! Earlier here, I have shown you how yours is unethical and now, I show you how it is illogical. This is mano-a-mano, toe-to-toe; you gave me two arguments as your justification, I parry them with two of mine, my dear swordsman. I don’t know if we can get any else to supply the weight of these for they are such that they are at the bed of what we are considering – foundational arguments.

Now, how is your principle illogical?

You think you can decide to sideline suffering but what will you do when suffering leads to the loss of lives or even the loss of mind? What will you say then? Who will be logical in that situation where there are no men to occupy the camp of Logic? What will you say then? You see how your principle also defeats itself? You see the illogicality of your beloved metallic, cold and dry Logic?

Your declaration, “take it or leave it” is neither here nor there so I have reversed your conclusion in concluding to you. Logic has to be judged by Ethics.

You know who I am.