The question of morality in a criminal case has always been a topic of concern. A question arises when considering the following; does a good cause justify a serious crime? In John Brown’s case, he uses the abolitionist’s cause to justify the murder of several men. Though his intentions were good, and his cause was mighty, it’s not morally sound to murder people. Many would argue that he was a hero, that fighting for the end of slavery in the manner he did was an act of bravery. However, radicalism of any variety is still dangerous. Though he was well-meaning, John Brown’s actions were not only inexcusable, but has the potential to reflect negatively on the abolitionist cause. John Brown was, in simplest terms, a murderer. In is testament (Doc 1), he uses the abolitionist movement to justify the murders of people in slave states. However, he is quick to admit that he “feel(s) no consciousness of guilt” (Doc 1). A man, even in defense of his cause, would and should, especially as a religious man, should feel some guilt, some despair, some pang of morality. Yet, he admittedly feels none. Furthermore, he claims to have had no intention to murder anyone, though Lee shares that his actions at Harper’s Ferry were clearly premeditated. Brown further defends his cause with the ‘law of God’. He uses …show more content…
Every movement, every belief has radicalists, a group of people who take a belief and twist it into something dangerous. For example, there have been numerous cases of cops being shot. For example, there was a shooting of seven police officers in the Dallas area because a radical supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement twisted the cause into something harmful. Black Lives Matter, in itself, is a strong movement, and the need to prevent the racially biased murders by cops is imperative. However, killing innocent people in defense of one’s actions, as John Brown did, is simply not the correct way to face situations as