Herman Melville's Billy Budd - Captain Vere was Correct

The Hanging of Billy Budd The hanging of Billy in Melville’s Billy Budd was a questionable and complex decision made by Captain Vere. Captain Vere, or “starry Vere,” chose to coincide with the law rather than spare Billy to make himself happy. The hanging of Billy was necessary for order to remain on the ship and for justice to prevail. Billy Budd, also known as the “handsome sailor,” was on trial for killing the master-at-arms, Claggart. Everyone wished for Billy’s life to be spared, but Captain Vere chose to follow the oath he pledged to the King.

Pablo has killed; he has seen the disgusting aspects of death and, as such, he does not wish to experience such. Robert Jordan, though also having killed, looks at death differently. It is a natural ending to life, as all people must die at some point. He knows that he will most likely die in his operation of blowing up the bridge and so he must just enjoy his final moments of life as much as possible before he leaves the earth. While he finds death much more disturbing after having a relationship with Maria, Robert Jordan does not try to dissuade death.

That is why Aeneas is looked up to for ending his life. I believe that when someone takes a life then the penalty of death should be reciprocated. A person who takes a life for revenge would usually not have my pardon either, but the poem takes place at a time where there was war and chaos, and so there would be no enforcement of punishing Turnus. Therefore, I believe it was right for Aeneas to take justice into his own hands by killing the man who killed Pallas. We know that Aeneas was considering sparing his life, but when he saw the sword belt that used to belong to Pallas, he knew that Turnus deserved to be killed, just as he had killed Pallas.

They knew that the rule book said that if a captain went against his contract due to personal feelings, they were obliged to wrest command from him. This idea symbolizes the emotional attachment we have to those around us, and it also demonstrates the mixed feelings we have when somebody we respect does something evil. In the end, this emotional attachment destroyed the crew. Starbuck had a golden opportunity to kill Ahab, but for his own salvation, he undermined the good of the crew and chose to let the Captain live. So, part of the lesson of Moby Dick is not to let sentiment and personal feelings get in the way of our duty.

As the conspirators begin to plan out the assassination of Caeser, Brutus still takes the higher, more respectable road. Cassius and many others wanted to kill him because they thought he didn't have the right intentions. Although Brutus agreed, he told them “And, gentle friends, let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully. Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods, not hew him as a carcass fit for hounds.” (2.1.171-174). They all were aware that Caeser needed to die before he gained power, but Brutus took the more honorable and noble way to do it.

To conclude, it is safe to say that when one is put in a difficult position human instincts come into play and one's decisions are driven by the will to survive. In "Gregory" by Panos Ionnides, the narrator has a duty of serving his country. He could disobey his command to protect a friend, but in return would lose his life. In "Lather and Nothing Else" by Hernando Tellez, the barber has a choice of whether he wants to be known as a hero in his community by killing Captain Torres but would be killed by the opposing army. As a final point, if it comes down to one's own life or somebody else's and the power to decide is in one's own hands, one would always choose oneselves.

It feels right to throw him overboard to save ourselves. So what if we get charged with murder, it’s him or us. In response to my decision, I still feel it is not a good idea to throw someone overboard. To do that one has to have no conscience and this would cause an innocent persons’ demise because he surely would not survive ... ... middle of paper ... ...52836952.)

If Hamlet were to kill Claudius, he would be violating a central religious principle against murdering another human being. Both suicide and murdering King Claudius would make him feel guilt at having violated religious coda, thus representing estrangement at the level of his religious consciousness (Knight 14). As Hamlet has the duty to avenge his father’s death by killing his father’s murderer, the King, Hamlet risks estrangement at the religious level. Hamlet is also principled in a moral sense. To kill a king would mean violating his internal conviction against committing crimes that might harm the hierarchical order of a state's government (Scott 56).

Clifford believes that it is a moral requirement that beliefs are justified in order to minimize the chance that an incorrect belief will affect other people. In the case of the ship-owner, who sent out his old emigrant ship based solely on the fact that he was able to suppress his doubts, killed every family looking for a better future. His unjustified belief had minimal effects on his business, but destroyed the lives of many families, due to his negligence in getting the ship repaired. Clifford argues that even if the ship had arrived safely, the ship owner is still guilty of not justifying his belief because once an action has occurred; it is “right or wrong forever” (Clifford). The only difference would be he would not have found out about his misdoings.

The book “Guests of the Nation” clarifies the fact that morals is not in present in such an environment. No matter how close the relationship of the soldiers and the prisoners had grown, they both had a goal to accomplish. Because of the death of the soldier’s allies, killing the prisoners symbolized revenge. Without revenge, the morale of a battalion would decrease. In the state of war, this could mean the difference of a win or lose.