In addition to the themes identified by Melanie Spiller in “The Cask of Amontillado,” I believe there are two additional themes worth exploring. The first is that of hubris, or an excessive pride or arrogance which leads one astray (Merriam-Webster). This theme can be seen throughout the story in both Montresor and Fortunato as each man displays a sense of entitlement due to their social status without considering any consequences for their actions. This ultimately culminates with Fortunato’s foolishness at getting trapped within the catacombs as well as Montresor’s remorselessness when sealing him away forever.
The second theme is that of retribution. Despite of no explicit evidence being provided readers can still infer from the narrative that this revenge was premeditated since Montresor detailed his plans several days prior to carrying them out (Poe, 1846). This suggests that whatever grievance he has against Fortunato was so severe that he felt it required such extreme measures in order to get justice.
Thus it can be seen that these two themes combined with those already identified by Melanie Spiller provide an interesting commentary on how unchecked emotions and desires can eventually lead to disastrous results if left unchecked. In this way then Poe once again demonstrates his great literary prowess making “The Cask of Amontillado” a timeless classic which is still relevant today.
legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war theory because of its normativity.
Jus post bellum
Finally, jus post bellum suggests that the actions we should take after a war (Frowe (2010), Page 208).
Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, p
