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

as if the repercussions were irrational. The master-at-arms John Claggart accuses the innocent sailor Billy Budd of starting a mutiny aboard the Bellipotent, simply out of envy. Despite having very little evidence to condemn Budd, Claggart takes the situation directly to the captain, who sends for Billy. The ignorant mind of Billy Budd can’t comprehend another human being framing him for something that he didn’t do, and loses complete control and enters a tantrum of rage, fatally striking down Claggart in the process. Soon after, Budd finds himself accused of murder. However, it was never intentional of Billy to murder Claggart, a sailor who, unbeknownst to Billy, had made previous attempts to blemish the innocence of the young sailor. Regardless, Billy now faces the gallows and lies at the mercy of Captain Vere, the only witness of the incident.

At this moment, the future of young Billy Budd relies on the verdict of Captain Vere. How would one with his acquaintance of the scandal react? The captain has undeniably heard of Billy Budd’s complete disregard of the wickedness in the world, and presumably also knows that Claggart remained a somewhat untrustworthy source of information, especially with the unlikelihood of Billy’s involvement in a mutiny. On the other hand, Billy does not immediately respond to the accusations of mutiny when asked, which, although ignored examining his condition at that time, raises a possible question of how innocent Billy truly is. Nevertheless, there is no doubt in Vere’s mind that Claggart’s death directly resulted via Billy’s strike to the master-at-arms’ head, regardless of the intent. Nothing more can be said now since the Bellipotent and its crew remain bound by the laws of Britain, which view Billy’s actions worthy of execution. Unfortunately, it seems like a horrible idea to condemn a man for a crime he didn’t intend to cause. Was there no other course of action that might have satisfied the laws of Britain, while giving Budd a second chance at life?

Come the end of the tale, the nagging ethics behind the final decision in Billy Budd remain to haunt the audiences’ minds.

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

just.

The trial of Billy Budd exists as one of the most controversial conflicts in literature, but ultimately decides the right choice. Despite the reality that the reasons behind it contain imperfections compared to the ethics of today, it lasts as the right decision for its place in history. In a way, the uneasy result exposes the tragic weaknesses in the British government of that time, and provides a lesson for posterity to learn from. As with many great classics, Billy Budd uses conflicts and choices such as these to gird its audience into wishing for a different outcome, whether that would be somebody trying to persuade the government to alter its laws or Billy not committing the infraction in the first place. At the root of the matter, the guilt lies not in the defendant nor the prosecutor, but in the rules that transcend both.