In class today, we discussed the idea of shunting emotional desires and emotional reasoning aside in favor of the law. This discussion reminded me of a movie that I had just been watching in my debate class. The movie, A Few Good Men, deals with many of the same themes as Billy Bud. It centers around the debate concerning whether orders should take precedence over personal choice, especially in a military setting.
The main difference between the ideas behind the two films is that A Few Good Men completely condemns the idea of following orders and ignoring emotional instincts. Billy Bud, seems to be far more ambiguous, especially during the captain's argument to his fellow jurors. Should orders be allowed to take precedence, especially in regards to the military? Was it the captain of The Avenger or Tom Cruise who was right?
Tara
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel the exact same way. Billy Budd definitely centers around the possible conflict between ethics and the law. However, I feel that by having Budd die, Melville is trying to show how strictly adhering to a code of justice is not the right thing to do. Because Budd, an innocent, almost perfect person, dies, we see how there is sometimes an absence of true justice in the world. This leads me to think that Melville's Billy Budd expresses the idea that codes of conduct and orders should not take precedence over ethical, rational decisions.
ReplyDelete-Bryce C.
I agree with Bryce. I haven't seen A Few Good Men, but it seems as if both stories are trying to say the same thing, only in different ways. Billy Budd shows that laws aren't always the just thing to do by following them, and having a negative outcome. It seems like A Few Good Men does the opposite of that. Billy Budd is telling us what not to do, while A Few Good Men is telling us what should be happening.
ReplyDelete-Audrey
While I agree that orders and laws should not take absolute precedence over emotion and ethics, I like the fact that Melville's Billy Budd provided us with arguments for both following orders and following emotion. I think what should be done is different for every specific case, but there should always be an argument and one should always consider both ways of approaching the decision.
ReplyDelete-Alexa
Aren't Melville and (to a much lesser extent) Cruise trying to present some sort of objective truth with respect to law and ethics? It seems to me that neither story sits on the fence; rather, they both seem to suggest that moral principles take precedence over judicial code. With that in mind, doesn't it seem that the ethical choice should always trump the legal one?
ReplyDelete-Colin
I suppose theoretically the ethical choice should be the legal one. That's the whole point of the law -- to be a written form of ethics. Therefore, when in cases like Billy Budd, they don't match up, something needs to be done. If the law does not match what is ethical, then the law needs to be rewritten. So the ethical decision should be the one chosen.
ReplyDelete~Becca