The idea of truth is subjective and does not always denote honest intentions, and long has the subject been addressed and pondered over. But when does that which is identifiable as ‘human nature’ cross the line into the un-virtuous? The premise of truth is relative and subject to each individual’s definition of truth and perception of reality. It is also comprehensive and ever-evolving. So then, a concrete definition of what constitutes truth must be outlined. As cerebral beings, humans tend to over analyze and categorize what each thing or idea can be identified as. Real truth is much simpler; truth is an accurate depiction of reality, with pure intent, and a full encompassing of every relevant detail.
Sartre refers to something called, ‘bad faith’, which he describes as self-deception. To further his description, he postulates that when one has an untruth in his or her mind, and perpetuates these inequities mentally, actions follow. This is a concept in psychology known as ’minimization’. In short, it is the trivialization and dismissing of truth. An individual can create a reality mentally, and consequently his or her actions will be a direct result of the need to enforce and substantiate this reality. The individual will then minimize all other possible truths to justify actions arisen because of this belief, and will also seek to maintain logical justification of said truth. This is the idea that is embraced in “The Cask of Amontillado”. Montresor has it in his mind that it is justifiable to murder Fortunado, due to Fortunado’s continued disrespect. He may feel justified, but vengeance is rarely an excuse for dishonesty. Truth is not synonymous with honesty; truth is constancy in character, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, and veracity. Another concept in self-deception is the idea of necessary inequity to perpetuate an external reality. For instance, it may be necessary for a man to portray himself in a positive way due to the parameters of his life. He may not be happy, but in order to keep the peace within his domestic and social environment, he may choose to ‘wear a mask’. This is a form of ‘bad faith’ as definable by Sartre, but it reflects virtuous intent.
Virtue is moral excellence; the key to moral excellence is in the golden mean. We become virtuous by doing. Ethics links any act with knowledge. The morality of an action, therefore, must be assessed in terms of the motivation behind it. Merely doing the right action is not sufficient to have the moral excellence. One must understand the value of honest actions and proceed with the intent of doing the right thing for the principle of the matter. Also, an action that appears to be noble but is in fact only done for the positive attention is morally devoid, and therefore more dishonest than someone doing a negative action out of honest rage. This idea begs the question of whether Fortunado’s murder is justified because Montresor was simply being honest to himself. In the era that “Cask” was written, it was socially and legally allowable to take a man’s life if he tarnishes another’s reputation or seeks to destroy his honor. Given this logic, it is still morally obligatory to ask if it is justifiable. This is the same question asked with the death penalty. Just because someone does something that warrants punishment, does not mean that it is excusable to punish said act with murder. It offers a level of hypocrisy that most people are willing to swallow because the would be victim has wronged another. Unfortunately, it perpetuates moral repugnancy.
Goodness cannot arise from acting impulsively or based on natural inclination, even if impulse coincides with duty. It can only arise from conceiving of one’s actions in a certain way. “A man cannot be judged only in his word, but also in his actions, for a man who speaks pure rhetoric is hateful; he will deceive in every matter. An immolation from iniquity is a stained oblation and the derision of the unjust are not well-pleasing.” (Sirach 37:20) In all of your acts, let a true word precede you. A wicked word can change the heart. Four things arise from action: good and evil, life and death; the tongue is continually their ruler. In “Cask”, a conflict derives from a motivation. The driving motivation in this story is Montresor's desire for revenge.
It has been speculated that the story of “Cask” was written as a competitive response to a fellow writer’s works and deeds. Thomas Dunn English wrote a few pieces poking fun at Poe and even mocking him in satirical prose. This was Poe’s response to English’s taunts. So even the story itself, was written with poor intent. Could it then be deduced that the characters in “Cask” are in fact Montresor and Fortunado? As the story goes, English created a libelous caricature of Poe in one of his stories, and even made specific, detailed allusion to “The Raven”. Poe sued English and his publisher and won the suit. (Silverman) Poe then proceeded to write “Cask” in response. English had insulted Poe, as he felt, inexcusably and numerously, similarly to Montresor’s feelings towards Amontillado. Perhaps Poe’s recanting of the tale of a man murdering his verbal assailant was a form of catharsis, expressing an act that he himself could never commit. Furthermore, Poe’s description of Fortunado is eloquent, as he describes him in an obviously foolhardy way, wearing a clown’s costume and drunkenly fumbling about. It is likely that this is how Poe saw English in his literary career, and ‘murdering’ his career and reputation is the subsequent recompense.
“No one attacks me with impunity.” (Poe) This is the motto of Fortunado’s family crest. If Montresor feels slighted then is it forgivable, based on Fortunado’s family motto, to seek redressing by vengeance? Is it possible that Montresor was a poor judge of what Fortunado’s true intent was? Is it possible that he was so blinded by rage and a hurt pride? This is the hole in the idea that an individual can judge another’s intent and direct his course of action accordingly. At the end of the day, analyzing a person’s actions subjectively is impossible, for the simple fact that an outsider can never know the true intent of a person, nor can they know that which fuels the person. The best estimation of truth and honesty lies in the intentional actions that arise as a result. We do not live in a modal world, therefore we need action to ascend from intent to true virtue.
