Revenge, a thought that has crept into the minds of almost everyone yet, most would not kill to attain it. Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado” depicts the murder of a man named Fortunato at the hands of Montresor. “Revenge” being the justification for this cruel act makes the morals of Montresor questionable and gradually builds to form a terrifying story. The dialogue between the two characters and the imagery used to create the catacombs and the twisted carnival atmosphere ultimately makes up this dark story. Throughout the narrative, the language used by Montresor shows deep emotion and disturbing passion for revenge and the punishment of Fortunato.
One who would read the story would tell you that the whole thing is about revenge and it can be looked at as revenge twists the mind of a person who is vengeful, to begin with, or as revenge is a driving force behind a person going so far as to commit a murder. Such a person might be so obsessed with vengeance that he imagines reasons to obtain it are the right doing. In this story, Montresor 's family prides itself on leaving no insult unavenged. Montresor 's obsession with this has perhaps made him imagine that Fortunato has insulted his family just so that he, Montresor, has something to try his family 's pride on. As when the narrator says ‘’THE thousand injuries of
If one tries to escape their fate, the conflicts that occur can be more severe than they were supposed to be. One can infer that what Oedipus is stating will eventually happen to him in the end of the play, if he is classified as the murderer. It is ironic how he talks about what could possibly be his own consequences for his actions. While giving the speech Oedipus says “I pray, too, that, if he should become an honoured guest in my own home and with my knowledge, I may suffer all those things I’ve just called down upon the killers” (Sophocles). Oedipus explains how the suspect will face bad things, and that if the murderer was let into his own house, with his knowledge, he shall be punished for it.
Perceptions from others can be cruel. Criminals are often thought of negatively by themselves and are also disrespected by others in society. The novel Monster presents the impressions people have about Steve Harmon, an accused criminal on trial for robbery and murder. Furthermore, the text explains Steve’s views of himself during and after time in prison from first person point-of-view. The novel Monster by Walter Dean Myers highlights the various perceptions that exist about an accused criminal.
He expresses an uncertainty on the person he was and wanted to know if he was truly deserving of taking the life of someone else. He wanted to know if he was “...a louse like all the rest…” and thus the true reasoning behind his crimes is revealed (Dostoevsky 419). Raskolnikov did not murder the pawnbroker for money or to be just. He simply wanted to kill for himself. His unstable understanding
Machiavelli, on one hand presented some arguments that to me were excessive like deceiving the people, not caring about what they think, and having the right to kill the family members of the former family in charge. Hobbes on the other hand, said we are not certain of anything and develops his deductive reasoning questioning everything and later saying it’s acceptable for us to live with uncertainty. Machiavelli and Hobbes both lived in fear and their theories reflect that, for which I think are bases more in emotions than logic. However, I think the fact that Locke’s time were relatively peaceful allowed him to write from a more “human” perspective. Natural rights is the argument I support the most.
As mentioned above, some of them did not intentionally willing to be a part of an extremists group, they were forced to do so. If anyone were being pointed a gun, most of them would rather choose to live and being ruled by an extremists group than die. Some of them were doing what they think is right, the fact that decades back, they couldn’t fight corruptors especially those with power. Now, they found a way to justice by killing people, because they knew that its hardly possible to go against powerful people. Therefore, it is partly the extremists fault in a case where they intentionally killed people to get justice, because no one, not even a criminals deserve to be killed in an extremely harsh way.
One of the deepest instincts we have tends to be revenge. But usually the instincts and emotions that we have serve for a purpose. Many theorists consider revenge as a way to establish justice and that a revenge threat might serve as protection, a type of implementation of social collaboration. (Larocco, 1) Perhaps revenge has a purpose to prevent certain hostile activities or the revenge threat protects people to not harm them in the future. However, occasionally individuals consider revenge when their actions have no good outcomes, other than to cause suffer on others.
Moral is a strange thing, it effects the way we act and reach. It effects what we think about others and were we draw the line. Moral is a concept of what is wrong and what is right when it comes to many things. Most of the time we have the same morals, most people consider murder wrong, but sadly, we do not all have the same morals. Morals can be something more personal and therefor they can differ.
There is suffering in the world, because life is unfair and always has been. Good people are harmed by evil people, who do not care about the wellbeing of others. Life for some people is about honoring family and tradition for others it is about gaining power over others. Death is a natural occurrence and some people are able to accept this, some cannot accept the fact that life is not eternal and seek ways to artificially elongate their lives even if it means harming or killing others in the process. All people are different and while some are righteous and will stand by their beliefs even if it means death they will, others are cowards driven by greed and power and will destroy anything and everything for it.