Heart Of Darkness Duality

In Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, Marlow displays moral ambiguity when he reacts to the conflict within the forest with duality of good and evil. Duality of morals reflects conflict between the light and dark, which represents the lies and truth respectively contrary to common symbolization. The moral ambiguity reflects mankind’s inner darkness that emerges once man is removed from civilization, which keeps the moral standard imposed on man. Conrad portrays moral ambiguity to not only demonstrate both good and evil in humans, but also to promote moral consciousness. Before Marlow leaves to go to the Congo, he visits his aunt who introduced him to the company through powerful connections. The aunt believes that imperialism is for “weaning

Once Marlow enter the wilderness, he encounters the “savages” and the corruption within the company. Marlow understand that the natives “were not enemies, they were not criminals,” disproving the justification that imperialists need to civilize the savages. The cruelty that the natives endure were “nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation,” revealing that Marlow recognizes the consequences of imperialism. Marlow sees such corruption and evilness hidden behind the idea of civilizing the savages, but he again does nothing to prevent the act of cruelty. Understanding the immorality of Europeans presents values in Marlow, but his inaction contradicts his belief because he allows the corruption to continue, which allows evilness to further spread its influence. Although the forest exposes Marlow to corruption, he retains feelings for others as the crew travels further into the heart of Africa. The crew encounters other natives who resist the crew’s advancement and kill the helmsman, and Marlow “missed him … an instrument. It was a kind of partnership… like a claim of distant kinship.” In contrast to other Europeans, Marlow expresses acceptance that all men are the same by claiming kinship with a native although Marlow confirms that fact that Europeans and natives are dissimilar. Essentially at the core of existence, everyone is the same so Marlow

Kurtz tries to escape one night, and Marlow does not raise the alarms because he “did not betray Mr. Kurtz...it was written [he] should be loyal to the nightmare of [his] choice.” In a twisted way, Marlow justifies following Kurtz as choosing between the lesser of two evil “nightmare,” Kurtz and the company, considering the immoral deeds of the imperialists. Marlow’s ability to compare others based on a moral scale demonstrates a set of moral values that he can base his judgement upon. However, deciding between two evils cannot determine Marlow as morally sound because both promotes corruption, but the company tries to justify its actions while Kurtz openly displays. Marlow chooses to remain loyal to Kurtz, which leaves his morality as ambiguous because he is neither entirely good nor entirely evil. After Kurtz dies and realizes his own deprivation, Marlow “affirms that Kurtz was a remarkable man” because he embraces his inner truth by succumbing to savagery. Deeming Kurtz as remarkable, or worthy of attention, endorses the values that Kurtz represented, savagery and lack of control over the darkness within him. Marlow rationalizes that “pure, uncomplicated savagery was a positive relief” compared to the corruption and schemes that Marlow encounters during his journey into Africa. The simplicity of savagery comforts the moral value system