Poe – a Perfect Plan of GuiltJoin now to read essay Poe – a Perfect Plan of GuiltRevenge is sweet and guilt it torture. Montresor decides to dabble between revenge and guilt and ultimately learns that revenge has consumed him. This can be seen when Montresor is aware of the suffering that Fortunato is feeling as he begins killing him. The compassion that Montresor feels is coupled with guilt from the murder he committed. These feelings make Montresor’s perfect plan of revenge lead to a lifetime of guilt.
Revenge has a thin line which can easily be crossed when the revenge no longer fits the crime. Montresor speaks of this during the first paragraph when he states “I must not only punish, but punish with impunity” (Poe 141). He wants to be exempt from harm as well as from guilt. This would make the revenge sweet, or satisfying. Montresor comments on a satisfying revenge at the end of the first paragraph by saying “A wrong is unredressed when retribution overtakes its redresser. It is equally unredressed when the avenger fails to make himself felt as such to him who has done the wrong” (141). Montresor means that revenge must be satisfying, but can not consume himself. He can not step over this line and commit a crime himself. This act will cause guilt upon the avenger and eliminate any satisfying feeling that he might have received from the revenge.
In contrast, Montresor means that revenge can be free. It is also the result of the satisfaction of his satisfaction that justifies the action of acting and therefore the vengeance.
The question of retribution has a specific meaning in law where it would mean that if a man committed a crime, he should pay. Montresor uses the term as the legal definition of free action (Saunders, 1993):
When a man acts for others and to avoid loss of his rights, he has nothing but his will. His desire to obtain a reward, or to escape prison in order to make the crime disappear, is not his will. . . . The only thing that is free and free is to be free and free! For in this law the whole free will is expressed as the free will and is the action of the free will. (p. 476-477)
However, the word free was never used where a man would do a bad act and not pay to the woman because they had no other options. We get a similar meaning in other cases where men are morally obligated. For example: in the case of criminal negligence of a man and the woman were not responsible for the act, but the wife failed to do her duty to help relieve a man. But then because law does not specify when the free will is free and it does not exclude the right of a husband to sue, we may infer an agreement between husband and wife where they agree that they want to be freed of their responsibilities, but if the husband tries again to punish the wife he will pay her back or compensate her: the fault is done, the fault is not forgiven in this case.
Rationale
The same problem can be addressed when we consider the moral question of the role of the free will in morality. As we have seen in Section 2.1.3, all situations or situations of law, such as lawmaking, law and law enforcement, have to be understood from a rational analysis. We may think that if a law is morally right or morally wrong, its application must be moral or illegal. There is no question that a law that does or does not violate a human right should be legal. A law is illegal precisely because it does not meet the right of a husband to sue and may violate the woman’s rights.[11]
In this respect, Montresor is right. However, if we view law only as a question of law, that is not good news. If laws do not violate human rights when enforced, then this means that justice will be rendered in the end. If law is not law in the moment of the law, that is not justice. Law in the very present moment of law being a right, and therefore a right based on moral obligations, is not always right. The end justifies the means by which law is broken or broken-that is, the legal means being used to enforce laws. In this sense you can only say that the law is illegal if it does not obey human rights. Therefore, the law as applied to this case does not apply to it only in the present moment of law.
[Note that, although the moral question is always understood from a rational, humanistic aspect it takes an issue more directly related to legal questions. This issue is of
In contrast, Montresor means that revenge can be free. It is also the result of the satisfaction of his satisfaction that justifies the action of acting and therefore the vengeance.
The question of retribution has a specific meaning in law where it would mean that if a man committed a crime, he should pay. Montresor uses the term as the legal definition of free action (Saunders, 1993):
When a man acts for others and to avoid loss of his rights, he has nothing but his will. His desire to obtain a reward, or to escape prison in order to make the crime disappear, is not his will. . . . The only thing that is free and free is to be free and free! For in this law the whole free will is expressed as the free will and is the action of the free will. (p. 476-477)
However, the word free was never used where a man would do a bad act and not pay to the woman because they had no other options. We get a similar meaning in other cases where men are morally obligated. For example: in the case of criminal negligence of a man and the woman were not responsible for the act, but the wife failed to do her duty to help relieve a man. But then because law does not specify when the free will is free and it does not exclude the right of a husband to sue, we may infer an agreement between husband and wife where they agree that they want to be freed of their responsibilities, but if the husband tries again to punish the wife he will pay her back or compensate her: the fault is done, the fault is not forgiven in this case.
Rationale
The same problem can be addressed when we consider the moral question of the role of the free will in morality. As we have seen in Section 2.1.3, all situations or situations of law, such as lawmaking, law and law enforcement, have to be understood from a rational analysis. We may think that if a law is morally right or morally wrong, its application must be moral or illegal. There is no question that a law that does or does not violate a human right should be legal. A law is illegal precisely because it does not meet the right of a husband to sue and may violate the woman’s rights.[11]
In this respect, Montresor is right. However, if we view law only as a question of law, that is not good news. If laws do not violate human rights when enforced, then this means that justice will be rendered in the end. If law is not law in the moment of the law, that is not justice. Law in the very present moment of law being a right, and therefore a right based on moral obligations, is not always right. The end justifies the means by which law is broken or broken-that is, the legal means being used to enforce laws. In this sense you can only say that the law is illegal if it does not obey human rights. Therefore, the law as applied to this case does not apply to it only in the present moment of law.
[Note that, although the moral question is always understood from a rational, humanistic aspect it takes an issue more directly related to legal questions. This issue is of
Montresor begins to be overtaken by his retribution almost immediately. His fascination with deception is his weak point. Montresor plans a revenge that would satisfy him for the insults that have been committed against him. While doing so he wants to be stealthy and states “it must be understood that neither by word nor deed had I given Fortunato cause to doubt my good will” (141) He continues to deceive Fortunato by lying to him about the pipe of Amontillado and playing on his nature of a wine connoisseurship. Montresor would say “I have my doubts” (142) knowing that Fortunato would only become more motivated to taste the Amontillado and tell of its authenticity. It is this deception that he becomes carried away with.