Sometimes, there is nothing more difficult than having to make a moral decision that goes against one’s will. In the short stories “The Guest” by Albert Camus and “Guests of the Nation” by Frank O'Connor, the protagonists of each story are faced with a difficult task. Daru, the protagonist from “The Guest,” is charged with taking the Arab prisoner to the French authorities; Bonaparte, the protagonist from “Guests of the Nation,” is responsible for shooting the British hostages in retaliation for any Irish soldiers shot by the British. Although both Daru and Bonaparte are faced with a similar circumstance, the inevitability of their duty, they interpret it in different ways. Daru’s strong disregard for his assigned duty symbolizes his simplistic will to stay neutral in a worsening political climate between the Arabs and the French. On …show more content…
In “The Guest,” Daru is told by Balducci to deliver the Arab prisoner to the police headquarters. Balducci proclaims, “You will deliver this fellow to Tinguilt. He is expected at police headquarters.” In response, Daru replies, confused, “Are you pulling my leg?” Daru continues to remain brazenly distasteful of his duty; “All this disgusts me, beginning with your fellow here. But I won’t hand him over. Fight, yes, if I have to. But not that.” Having to turn the Arab prisoner in by his own will, Daru claims that fighting for a declared war would make his position clearer. In “Guests of the Nation,” Bonaparte, similar to Daru, is confounded by the unavoidable duty of shooting the British hostages. When Donavan reveals, “and now they’re talking of shooting them. If they shoot our prisoners, we’ll shoot theirs,” Bonaparte replies, “Shoot them? How could we when they were on our hands so long?” Bonaparte believes that shooting the two hostages is an act which reflects cruelty: “It would be great cruelty to put the wind up them
...ahlquist’s sacrifice highlights Heinlein’s belief, that the same self-sacrificing impulse that Winston had, might facilitate positive social change. Contrastingly, Le Guin highlights the continued anomalies in human morality where society willingly sacrifices its morals to meet selfish needs. Overall, people’s capacity to effect social change is relative to the prevailing social conditions, their ability to impact critical aspects of the prevailing conflict and their capacity to accept self-sacrifice as morally justifiable. Consequently, moral ambiguity prevails.
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
Through his own experience, O’Brien develops the idea that self-respect erodes like a pebble in a river of insecurity. No matter how hard O’Brien tries to convince himself that he must listen to his conscience, he is unable to retreat from his burden. He might die in the wrong war! He might become one of the carcasses in the slaughterhouse! But he must do what he should do. In life when we believe that our self-respect is right, we are determined to follow our heart. However, when we encounter oppressive situations, we will not swim away from our insecurity, because “[we are] cowards, [we go] to war”.
There exist only two types of people in a time of war and crisis, those who survive and those who die. Elie Wiesel’s novel, Night shows how Elie, himself, faces difficult problems and struggles to survive World War II. Wilfred Owen’s poem, “Dulce et Decorum Est”, tells a story about a young soldier thinking of himself before others during World War I. The poem “Mary Hamilton” shows how a mother killed her child so she would not get into trouble. Sir John Harrington writes about a sad truth in the poem “On Treason”; the poem reflects humanity’s selfish tendencies during tough times. When people face difficult times they often care about only one person, themselves; the need to survive clouds people’s moral and judgment.
The oppression and invasion of the conquerors arouse, instead of crush, the desire of the defeated for freedom. These people, who have lived with the idea of a free rule of democracy, refuse to be chained down under the oppressive rule of the conquerors. It is for this reason that they strike back at their invaders. As said by Mayor Orden to Colonel Lanser of the aggressors, “ ‘The people don’t like to be conquered, sir, and so they will not be. Free men cannot start a war, but once it is started, they can fight on in defeat.
Daru, the schoolteacher in a remote area of Algeria, is torn between duty and what he believes is the right thing to do when he is suddenly forced in the middle of a situation he does not expect. He must escort an Arabic prisoner to the nearest town. It is not that Daru has much sympathy for the man; in fact, he does not, and actually finds himself disliking the Arab for disrupting so many lives. "Daru felt a sudden wrath against the man, against all men with their rotten spite, their tireless hates, their blood lust." Unfortunately, Daru loves his homeland, and cannot bear to think of leaving, despite the chaos that is raging around him between France and the Algerian natives. I believe that Daru makes the right choice in letting the prisoner choose his own fate. Daru has reaso...
In J.M. Coetzee’s novel Waiting for the Barbarians, the Magistrate comes to discover the humanity of the barbarian through his interactions with the blind girl, which eventually leads him to learn about the nature of his own humanity. Although the Magistrate is more lenient on the Barbarians than Colonel Joll, he still unknowingly objectifies them, while placing himself above them. It is only when he is imprisoned that he comes to realize the fragility of his own humanity. Ultimately Coetzee uses the magistrate’s journey from empirical leader to broken and fearful prisoner to express that peace and stability between people can only be obtained when all humanity is valued.
With exaggeration, authors craft their writing to have an even greater, more impactful effect on their audiences. This enhanced effect found in Candide serves the purpose of highlighting how humans adopt a type of absolute viciousness and inhumanity in times of war. One example is the instance where Candide - a member of the Bulgar army, at the time - must choose between being “flogged” by the entirety of the military command, or to endure “twelve bullets in his brain” (24). Here, Candide is given a nonsensical, almost ludicrous, ultimatum. Voltaire offers an embellished example that serves to demonstrate the barbaric military practices that come with war. Being a recurring aspect of war, Candide is, essentially, forced to choose between death and death. In fact, along with exaggeration, Voltaire satirizes war even further as the choice of whether it be a gradual or speedy demise is Candide’s own luxury. Voltaire does not just simply antagonize the ramifications of war, but rather, he ridicules all facets of war. Another example within Candide is when the Old Woman reveals the story of her own life as proof of the grim hardship that she too has experienced. In the midst of another battle, “one buttock” was cut off of the live bodies of every woman present in the interest of feeding the starving soldiers (56).
Quentin Tarantino’s 2009 film Inglourious Bastards entails a Jewish revenge fantasy that is told through a counterfactual history of events in World War II. However, this story follows a completely different plot than what we are currently familiar with. Within these circumstances, audiences now question the very ideas and arguments that are often associated with World War II. We believe that Inglourious Basterds is a Jewish revenge fantasy that forces us to rethink our previous understandings by disrupting the viewers sense of content and nature in the history of World War II. Within this thesis, this paper will cover the Jewish lens vs. American lens, counter-plots with-in the film, ignored social undercurrents, and the idea that nobody wins in war. These ideas all correlate with how we view World War II history and how Inglourious Basterds muddles our previous thoughts on how these events occurred.
Courage is something that is not integrally human, particularly in times of war where one’s existence is in peril. During the time of war, this is conveyed when one’s integrity is being tested the most: there are few who desire to conserve this integrity and their humanity through selfless acts in the time that generosity is a fantasy. When most individuals are occupied of thoughts of their own self preservation, selflessness preserves and fortify one’s integrity and humanity when one risks their life for others. In the novel The Cellist of Sarajevo, Steven Galloway emphasized the moral crisis that people faced when they were challenged with their own mortality and the hardship of those worse off. He
The story of “Killings” by Andre Dubus looked into the themes of crime, revenge and morality. The crime committed in the story depicted the father’s love for his son and the desire to avenge his son’s death. However, his own crime led to his own destruction as he was faced with questions of morality. The character found himself in a difficult position after taking his revenge. He failed to anticipate the guilt associated with the crime he committed. Feelings of anger and righteousness are illustrated by the character throughout the story.
Throughout an individual’s life-time, he/she has a vision as o what his/her should be. But when things do not go as planned and the unexpected occurs, does that person face it, or run away? In “An Act of Vengeance” by Isabel Allende, running away is not an option at well. Through the usage of plot, character and irony, Allende illustrates the cost of war.
Because the audience is specific to the Emperor, Browning carefully tailors her argument to Napoleon's beliefs and morals. She brings up God in another attempt to compare Napoleon to the religious deity, “Make an exception of him as God made an exception of him when He gave him genius...” (Browning 56-57). This comparison of God makes Napoleon seem like an idol to Browning, encouraging Napoleon to continue actions that mirrors God. Continuing the comparison of Napoleon to God, Browning instills in the emperor the idea of “turning the other cheek” by forgiving him and “disproving him with your [his] generosity”.
He also is almost disappointed that the Arab decides to leave, looking at him with a “heavy heart” (28). This scene further magnifies the ironic fact that even though Daru isolates himself from humanity, he is the most humane person in the
We can see the contrast between Balducci and Daru’s actions towards the man. Whenever the Arab is in Balducci’s custody, the Arab squatted by the stove as though he knew he wasn’t supposed to sit anywhere else (The Guest, pg. 238). Daru treated the Arab like a human being, bringing him a glass even while he was still tied up and squatting on the teachers platform. Daru offered him tea, which might seem like a small gesture, but in a story where Arabs and the French were at war, such an act of kindness is uncommon. After Balducci leaves, Daru treats the Arab like a friend who had been invited into his home.