Conscience of
Huckleberry Finn Commentary
In
the “Conscience of Huckleberry Finn” Bennett discusses the morality or more
specifically the “bad morality” of the literary character Huckleberry Finn; the
leader of Hitler’s secret police, Heinrich Himmler; and early American
Calvinist Theologian, Jonathan Edwards.
Bennett does this by specifically looking at the roles played by each
subject’s sympathy in their moral dilemma.
However,
to be able to discuss this article one must understand the definitions of a few
key terms. The first term is bad
morality. This is described by Bennett
in the article as, “a morality whose principles I deeply disapprove of
(Bennett, pg 16).” The other key term is
sympathy. This term is described by
Bennett as such, “I use this term to cover every sort of fellow-feeling, as
when one feels a shrinking reluctance to act in a way which will bring
misfortune to someone else (Bennett, pg 16).”
Based on this definition by Bennett one could use conscience and
sympathy interchangeably.
In Bennett’s
discussion of Huckleberry’s moral dilemma he uses as an example of bad morality
Huckleberry’s feelings of guilt at helping his friend Jim, a slave, to gain his
freedom. Seen through the eyes of
current morality this seems to be the right thing to do, but let us look at it
as an under-educated child from the 1800s would look at the prospect of a slave
being freed. Though Jim is Huckleberry’s
friend and companion he is a slave, which by definition makes him
property. So by him not reporting Jim
and allowing him to gain his freedom he is at the very least an accomplice to
the theft of another’s property.
Huckleberry feels this is wrong, based on the bad morality of the time
and this just gets worse when Jim confides his plan to steal his wife and
children if he has to. In a last ditch
attempt to put things right Huckleberry decides to turn Jim in but when it
comes time to do so, Huckleberry freezes and is unable to do “the right thing”
based on the moral code of the day. He
gives into the sympathy he feels for his friend which ironically is the right
thing to do but Huckleberry sees it as a “wicked felony” (Bennett, pg 18). This leads Huckleberry to reject morality and
to rely on conscience.
This is different
from Heinrich Himmler who became a Nazi in 1923 and became head of the SS,
which put him in charge of the Nazi’s “final solution of the Jewish problem
(Bennett, pg 15).” The solution leads to
the death of over four and a half million Jews and several million other
gentiles, mostly Poles and Russians.
This to us might seem completely repugnant and against all morality; however,
Himmler believed he was doing what was best for Germany , no matter how personally
distasteful he finds it. These views can
be found in a speech made to some generals of the SS in which he states, “atrocities
must be performed to ensure the victory of Germany ”, including the destruction
of the Jewish race. However, he stated
doing this is not easy and should not be so.
This is because he acknowledges the presence of sympathy, the part of a
person that leads him or her to feel compassion for another, by stating that
even though these atrocities have been committed that they remain “decent
fellows” (Bennett, pg 20). This is a
case unlike Huckleberry’s where bad morality won out. Himmler saw it as more important to do what
his morality said, which was to ensure the greatness of Germany , than
to show sympathy for his fellow human beings.
But he does acknowledge the presence of sympathy and the fact it is
sympathy that made what they had to do so hard.
Such is not the
case with Jonathan Edwards, who Bennett holds up as a man whose bad morality is
in his belief that all of mankind deserves eternal damnation. This I believe most people would disagree
with but beyond that Edward’s seems misanthropic in his lack of sympathy for
any who are condemned. So unlike
Huckleberry who gives up a bad morality and embraces sympathy or Himmler that
embraces a bad morality while ignoring his sympathies, Edwards seems to adjust
his morality to one which completely does away with any human compassion.
The examples
Bennett gave in his article are not the only ones where there is a dilemma of bad
morality verses sympathy. One that comes
to mind is the “Stolen Generation”. This
is what the Aborigines called the children of Aboriginal descent that were
taken from their families in the period from 1869 to 1969 to be raised as wards
of the state. They were deprived of
their culture and taught the ethnocentric culture of European settlers. It could be argued that this was done out of
a misguided sense of sympathy. The
results of which are inarguable. I think
there are many examples like the “Stolen Generation” happening as we speak;
however, like the well meaning European settlers in Australia , who thought they were
providing a solution, they were in reality only causing a problem. It took 100 years for this program based on a
bad morality to come to an end because while it was going on the powers that be
in Australia
honestly thought they were doing a good thing.
This is the rub when it comes to identifying ones morality as being
bad. Did Himmler or Edwards think that
their morality was bad? I would say that
in neither case that they would, because it is not in human nature to think ill
of one’s own morality. Granted people
can see injustices all around them and can work to fix those injustices that
directly affect them; however, these changes do not have an immediate effect on
morality. Which is not to say morality
is static and unchanging, it is something akin to a living organism that adapts
and changes over many generations; and it is not until ones own morality
changes enough that they are able to recognize flaws in a society’s
morality.
Bennett’s premise
for writing “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn” was to exam how sympathy
related to a “bad morality”. In writing
this commentary, I feel that there definitely is a relationship present between
sympathy and bad morality. I also feel
that as demonstrated by the “Stolen Generation”, sympathy can also lead to bad
morality. In short, morality is
something that grows and changes and whether good or bad it takes time and
distance to know for sure.
