Title of Paper
Edgar Allan Poe in the Tell-Tale Heart used the unnamed narrator to narrate the story of an old man and the narrator himself and the state of mental illness. This paper seeks to analyze the actions of the narrator in the Tale Tell Heart by justifying if the actions meet the ethical tests and moral acceptability in the society and the influence of mental illness. The actions of the narrator are of course influenced by the mental illness that he is suffering from. The paper dissects through the actions and explains the justifications of the narrator’s actions ethically and morally. However, it should be noted that mental illness has overtime influenced people’s actions. The world health organization has reported that 3% of people suffering from mental illness become violent to their caregivers and even the people around them.
To begin with, the narrator commits murder and he is unmoved by it. The narrator in the Tell-Tale Heart kills the old man that they are staying with. The narrator retorts that “…object there was none. Passion there was none. I loved the old man. He had never given me an insult. For his gold I had no desire…” the narrator confirms that he had no issue against the old man, the old man had never insulted the narrator, therefore; there is no reason to justify the murder. From the narration, we learn that the narrator hated the blue eye of the old man he detested the eye thus it drove him to kill the old man so that the narrator can get rid of the eye. The narrator refers to the eye as the “vulture eye” and he wants to eliminate it. The only justification for the murder of the old man is the mental illness that the narrator is suffering from. On the ethical and moral grounds, such a death like that of the old man is not justifiable. The old man had done absolutely nothing to warrant his death. His only mistake was the “vulture eye” something he had no authority over since he would not change it. The narrator says, “whenever it fell upon me, my blood ran cold; and so, by degrees… very gradually… I made up my mind to take the life of the old man.” The narrator makes up the mind to kill the old man just because of the eye.
On the other hand, the actions of the narrator can be understood. Not because he did a good thing but his state of mind. By the time he was committing the action, it would be his illness was at his peak therefore he would not be able to make a sound decision. The narrator says, “you should have seen how wisely I proceeded…with caution…with what foresight… with what dissimulation I went to work.” The narrator planned the whole week to kill the old man. The narrator carefully planned how he will conduct the process something that gives a notion that he was mentally stable but as we realize the narrator was mentally unstable. His anger towards the old man’s eye can be explained through the madness of the narrator, which caused the old man’s life. Although the action cannot be justified his state of mind might be understood. People with mental issues act in a manner that later on the question and regrets their actions. At such times one cannot control his actions. However, that alone cannot be used to justify the narrator’s actions but something more should have been done so that such an eventuality can be evaded.
Secondly, the action of the narrator to hide the body of the old man and invite the police to the room that he hides the old man’s body is questionable. It will not take long before the police will figure out the odor of the dead man. The narrator says, “I brought chairs into the room, and desired them here to rest from their fatigues; while I, in the wild audacity of my perfect triumph, placed my seat upon the very spot beneath which reposed the corpse of the victim.” The fact that he is the killer it is not expected that the narrator was to invite the police to the place of the scene. It bits logic that a murderer will follow that line of action considering that the body of the old man was rubbed and hidden underneath where he was seated. In our society, the perpetrator will likely draw the law enforcement officers away from the evidence that a heinous act has been committed. On the contrary, the narrator invites the police to the crime scene and seats on top of the dead body. It is morally acceptable that he would have not brought the police to the crime scene but this rather unravels the madness of the narrator. His action fails the ethics of what is expected of him. This, therefore, proves of the narrator’s mental health and the justification of what the madman is capable of doing.
On the other hand, such an action is only justifiable by the people experiencing mental illness. People suffering from mental illness have been proven to commit to actions that a sane person cannot think of and can never attempt. To bring the police to a place that would have probably incriminated the narrator is only for the insane people. The smell of the dead person would have alerted the police to suspect something. Thus, his action of inviting the police and hiding the body beneath his seat justifies his madness. Therefore, he is not in control of his actions rather the narrator’s unstable mind justifies why he does what he does to the body of the old man and inviting the police.
Moreover, the grotesque means that the narrator uses to dispose of the body have no basis of ethical and moral justification. It will only be noble that after intentionally or unintentionally that when somebody has been killed that his body is left so that it can be disposed of with human dignity. The narrator instead does a procedural elimination and disposing of of the body that does not dignify the narrator’s respect for the dead old man. The narrator acknowledged that the old man had not done anything wrong with the narrator therefore; his grotesque way of disposing of the body is uncalled for. The narrator burns the old man’s body; he wraps it with a clothing material and carefully places it underneath his bed. Such an action, especially from a person that they have been staying with, is traumatic. It was expected of the narrator that he should have left the body to be buried duly and present himself to the police; something he does but the reader wonders is he guilt when he confesses or he will as well kill the police officers. The narrator’s actions are unjustifiable and fall below the ethics and morals of human society.
On the contrary, the fact that he burns and disposes of the old man’s body insinuates that like any other sane person he does not want the evidence to be found. He burns the remains of the old man and hides it carefully where the narrator thinks they would not be found. A sane person after committing such a murder would probably hide the remains of the body. This one action justifies his sanity and what people would do but it does not justify murder wholesomely.
Violence is what the narrator melts upon the old man as a means to establish his innate satisfaction and to justify his thoughts. The narrator didn’t like the eye of the old man therefore he had to eliminate it; in the process, he eliminated the old man. The murder nonetheless, did not allow the narrator to achieve the desired solution. The narrator believed by murdering the old man his problems will cease but they increased with a dead body. He became more insane and irrational and even ended up giving himself up to the police. The act of murder did not justify whatever he hoped to get instead he got something worse. He hoped to achieve personal satisfaction and gratification but he got himself in a worse situation. Murder is not ethical or moral therefore; it is unjustifiable.
In conclusion, the actions of the narrator are not justifiable ethically and morally withstanding his mental state. Murder cannot be justified as long as one individual is deprived of the right to live. As the paper notes, the actions may be understood from the mental point of view that such occurrences are bound to happen. People with mental illness do some regrettable things but at the point of committing such acts, they are not in a position to make better decisions either. This, however, does not contradict the argument in the paper. The actions of the narrator are unwarranted and regrettable. The actions cannot be justified therefore they are unethical and immoral.