Creon prevents the people in Thebes to bury Polynices by saying that anyone who tries to bury him will be sentenced to death. This law may be harsh, but Polynices is a traitor who attacks his homeland. Creon makes no exceptions to the rule even when he realizes Antigone, his niece, tries to bury Polynices. It is easy for Creon to let Antigone get away with her crime, but he does what he thinks is right by starving Antigone. If he lets Antigone get away with burying her brother, it will make him seem weak, and the government corrupt.
The aberrant perspective of Gilgamesh which I am presenting may seem divergent and atypical when analysed in accordance to our modern values and principles, but to Gilgamesh this would be quite natural. The values and ethics that contemporary readers hold shape their perspective of characters as they respond in various ways to the adventures that said characters undertake. A perfect example of this is when the narrator speaks of the state of Uruk and says “No son is left with his father, for Gilgamesh takes them all”. From this, the contemporary audience frames Gilgamesh as an immoral tyrant, as their value of free will is being challenged. However, Gilgamesh’s intentions were in the interest of the people, as he moulded the sons into warriors to protect the city.
When the inventor learns this he goes on a rampage and burns numerous Morlocks and saves Weena. The inventor had killed many Morlocks out of anger and fright. He really didn’t have to kill them, but he was angry at the Morlocks. Even after he saved Weena he set an explosion to kill all of the Morlocks. This proves Lincoln’s quote’s interpretation that when someone is angry they’re irrational and not themselves.
In Kafka’s short story “In The Penal Colony”, The Officer is the judge of the colony and punishes men who may or may not be considered guilty by more humane men. He takes the ultimate sacrifice in the end when he realizes that he is the one who should be punished and he uses the machine—that he used to worship—to kill himself. The two villains are similar in the fact that they both murder people for unjustifiable reasons, however, they differ when it comes to morals and confidence. Captain Torres kills rebels whether they did anything or not. He doe not care about their intentions as he states that all the rebels will be punished (p.443).
He eventually finds his own morals and tells himself what is right and what is wrong. Part of this realization came from him helping Jim, which troubled his mind because of what society said about helping him. But he then based his decision to help on his own experiences and logic. That is kind of what Fahrenheit 451 puts forth. But instead of trying to gain knowledge it is being destroyed, all because society is trying to promote ignorance which causes sameness in all.
* Question the degree of the influence Edie has on him and his future. * He turned Edie away from being a nun. Both of them had an equally important influence on each other. This is where the subtlety and nuance. * Its more revenge and self-interest rather than the driving force behind his moralities * He is uneasy about taking on the role as whistle-blower * Struggles with the decision to abandon the code of D & D * He is indecisive until Charley’s death * Rage and desire seem to drive him rather than any desire to address a moral failing * After inquiry Terry is transformed into a stronger more positive version of himself.
Brutus assumes that they would be slaves if Caesar became king and he logically explains what went through his head. He says that he had to make the logically decision of killing Caesar and becoming free men, or staying quiet and die as slaves. The crowd praised Brutus because he wanted better for the people of Rome not for his selfish needs. After he expresses pathos by trying to get the pity of the crowd. He wanted to let the crowd know that he loved Caesar, but he simply loved Rome much more, “Just as I killed my best friend for the good of Rome, so will I kill myself when my country requires my death.” (3,2 pg.129).
Because Claudius wanted to be king more than anything one can assume the suppression of his id caused him to be so aggressive he killed the king. As seen in Claudius’ prayer in act 3 scene 3 lines 37-73;98-99 he feels guilt but no remorse for what he’s done, as seen in lines 98-99, “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. Words without thoughts never to heaven go.” On the other hand in the story of The Complete Persepolis, the battle
They part ways and they lead their troops in battle. When the battle gets to be too much, Cassius has his friend Pindarus kill him with the same sword that Cassius used to stab Caesar with. He then dies once he gets stabbed. When Brutus hears of Cassius’ death, he has his friend Strato hold his sword out and he runs into it and kills himself, also. I don’t think that Brutus is a tragic hero at all, because he killed himself, and I don’t think that he did it for a good cause.
He was one of the few mortals honoured by the gods, but he foolishly and cruelly wanted to test their omniscience. During the feast he gave to the gods, he killed his son, Pelops, and served the flesh of his son to the gods. All but Demeter recognised human flesh and was repulsed by the horrid crime. According to the Boeotian poet, Pindar, he wrote that his crime was not only those mentioned above, but also that Tantalus had abused his privileges, by trying to share