How can lying and telling partial truths be more ethical than following the law? One of the final scenes in To Kill A Mockingbird reveals the death of Mr. Ewell after his attack on Jem and Scout. Atticus believes the written law show be directly adhered to, while Heck Tate believes morals take precedence over precise legal codes. The men have differences of opinion on who killed Mr. Ewell, and how they should respond. Each man views his cause as the most moral and most ethical. Both Atticus and Tate are stubborn, firmly holding on to their interpretation of the law. What constitutes the moral course of action is subjective, differing from person to person. However, the most ethical option available in this situation is to bend the law and …show more content…
This line demonstrates that Scout understands what Atticus has been attempting to teach her in terms of innocence and the value of life. She views Arthur as a mockingbird, someone who does nothing but good for the community. Radley is an exemplary neighbor, leaving gifts for Scout and Jem in the knothole of a tree. More importantly, he saved the children from Mr. Ewell. The motif of the mockingbird ultimately means innocence. After Radley rescues her, Scout realizes that he is, symbolically, a mockingbird. He is revealed as a friend of the Finches, who, when needed most, appeared and helped them.
Atticus’ belief in the letter of the law causes him to advocate for a trial of Jem for the killing Mr. Ewell. However, Jem did not kill him and is innocent. Arthur Radley is understood to have killed Mr. Ewell, but did so in order to save the children from him. Heck Tate’s wish to acquit Radley without trial is in accordance with the spirit of the law because even though a crime was committed, it was to protect the Finch children, and therefore was a good deed. It would be morally wrong to condemn Arthur for this act of selfless bravery, equivalent to shooting a