Decisions In Billy Budd

In all exceptional literature, there comes a time where a character makes an impactful decision, whether satisfactory or unacceptable. In addition, there is often a conflict that can’t instantly resolve, and remains a controversial event. In the case of Billy Budd, the decisive resolution vacillates betwixt the morals behind an action and the accountability to follow the law. The conclusion is a questionable and arguably stringent judgment that leaves audiences pondering the author’s intent for the entire book. As grim as it may seem, the arbitration is the most legitimate antiphon to the infraction carried out in the cabin of the individual ultimately deciding the causatum: Captain Vere.

Looking at the incident in question, it would appear

While it could be argued that the climactic conclusion should have been different, and those that believe this would be partially correct, the painful truth persists: nothing better could happen in the year the story takes place. Had this tale transpired one century later, the crime committed would amount to unintentional manslaughter, and Billy’s punishment would not be as severe. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and the consequences coordinate with the laws of that day. But if the decision lingers an immoral act due to the laws, why doesn’t Vere stand against the establishment of that time and err on the side of what is right? The reason is that Vere should have no actual loyalty to Billy in the first place. The duty of the captain should be to uphold the law, not to venture off on a humanitarian mission. Even if he decided to unrealistically portray the hero in this story, the captain’s luck would ultimately run out, and he would be trapped in the same boat as Billy Budd. In retrospect, the decision stays acceptable for that place and time, but fails in regards to the decision that would truly be