Oh, yes, well, if he must shoot highwaymen, it's very well, but to leave the poor man dead on the road – though I make no doubt he would have done the same to Vidal, for I believe they are horridly callous, these fellows – but that's neither here nor there. Vidal had no right to leave him. Now people will say that he is wickedly blood-thirsty, or something disagreeable, and it is quite true, only one does not want the whole world to say so.
The speaker expresses a conflicted view on a character's violent actions, recognizing that while the character may have justified reasons for shooting highwaymen, leaving a man dead by the roadside is inexcusable. There’s an acknowledgment that the character, Vidal, is morally flawed and could have acted with greater compassion. Nonetheless, the speaker feels frustrated that this cruel act may lead others to label Vidal as heartless and terrible.
This perception of judgment weighs heavily on the speaker, who is aware of the harsh conclusions that society may draw regarding Vidal's character. The tension between recognizing someone's brutality and wanting to shield them from public scorn is palpable, illustrating a complex moral landscape where the desire for reputation conflicts with genuine behavior. Overall, the passage reflects on the themes of morality, reputation, and the ambiguity of human actions.
