The End Game Everyone has the need to have purpose in their life. Meaning that everyone has an end goal in mind. But, does the method getting there really matter? Can the end justify the means? This question arises when reading through Heart of Darkness. Many characters in the novel had purpose in their actions, two major characters are Kurtz’s purpose of obtaining power, and Marlow’s purpose of doing what’s morally right. Kurtz’s main goal was to achieve power and that was enough justification for him to do whatever necessary to get there. Marlow’s main goal was to, in the end, do what is morally right and in doing so, he had to break some rules in the process. Joseph Conrad promotes the idea that the end justifies the means shown by the
…show more content…
Once the Company returned back to England Marlow was in possession of Kurtz’s manuscript detailing his methods on how he collected his vast amounts of ivory. After much pressure from the Company Marlow gave up, “the report on the ‘Suppression of Savage Customs’ with the postscriptum torn off.”(pg 108). Since Marlow tore the postscriptum off this shows that Marlow cheated the Company by giving Kurtz’s incomplete report, violating his contract. The reasoning behind Marlow’s actions was to prevent more Africans to be executed by the Company. In other words, Marlow scammed the Company to help the natives in the Congo and did not benefit himself but others. Hence, Marlow’s means of defying Company rules are justified by his ends of saving African …show more content…
Kurtz’s method of exterminating the natives in the Congo are validated by his achievement of power displays that Kurtz will do anything to aid his own interest. On the contrary to Marlow who decides to deceit the Company by leaving out the postscriptum to stop the annihilation of Africans in the Congo not to gain anything but to help save lives in the Congo. Having Kurtz justify the cruelty towards natives shown by his painting of the Intended reveals that Kurtz’s only cares to benefit himself and doesn’t care of the method getting there. While Marlow’s actions of lying to the Intended were deceitful, he only committed them to shield the views of Europeans and the Intended from the trueness of Kurtz and the Company. Altogether, the end game can bypass the
Once the Company returned back to England Marlow was in possession of Kurtz’s manuscript detailing his methods on how he collected his vast amounts of ivory. After much pressure from the Company Marlow gave up, “the report on the ‘Suppression of Savage Customs’ with the postscriptum torn off.”(pg 108). Since Marlow tore the postscriptum off this shows that Marlow cheated the Company by giving Kurtz’s incomplete report, violating his contract. The reasoning behind Marlow’s actions was to prevent more Africans to be executed by the Company. In other words, Marlow scammed the Company to help the natives in the Congo and did not benefit himself but others. Hence, Marlow’s means of defying Company rules are justified by his ends of saving African …show more content…
Kurtz’s method of exterminating the natives in the Congo are validated by his achievement of power displays that Kurtz will do anything to aid his own interest. On the contrary to Marlow who decides to deceit the Company by leaving out the postscriptum to stop the annihilation of Africans in the Congo not to gain anything but to help save lives in the Congo. Having Kurtz justify the cruelty towards natives shown by his painting of the Intended reveals that Kurtz’s only cares to benefit himself and doesn’t care of the method getting there. While Marlow’s actions of lying to the Intended were deceitful, he only committed them to shield the views of Europeans and the Intended from the trueness of Kurtz and the Company. Altogether, the end game can bypass the