At first, Aram is convinced that his cousin could not possibly have stolen the horse at all, because their family was renowned for their honesty and trustworthiness and would never do such a thing as steal. However, he is also aware that his cousin Mourad is poor and could not have bought the horse, which leads him back to the idea that it is stolen.
Aram justifies the act of stealing the horse to himself by deciding that taking a horse in order to go for a ride on it is not at all the same as stealing other, tangible things, "such as money." Having identified this as a mental justification, Aram goes further, questioning whether stealing a horse is really stealing at all if, like his cousin Mourad and himself, one was "crazy about" horses. He also determines that unless they decided to sell the horse for money—and thereby profit from the act of stealing—it was perfectly justifiable and not a criminal act, because the cousins would not be trading in stolen goods, but simply enjoying a horse for pleasure.
When Mourad arrives at his house with a stolen horse, Aram justifies the act of theft in a couple of ways. First of all, he says that the theft of a horse is not the same as stealing. In his view, stealing a commodity, like money, is far more serious than stealing a horse just to ride on it. In fact, stealing a horse isn't really stealing at all. It can only be classified as stealing if he and Mourad intend to sell the horse for money, an act which they would never do.
Secondly, Aram justifies the theft by reminding the reader how crazy Mourad is about horses. Horses are his one passion in life, and he would never be able to buy a horse of his own because he comes from a poor family. Aram, therefore, believes that it is acceptable for Mourad to ride this horse. After all, it may be the only chance he gets to have a close, personal encounter with a horse.
No comments:
Post a Comment