Morality in Julius Caesar Morality in Julius Caesar The removal of Caesar from office by assassination in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar attempts to justify an unethical act by focusing on the motivation behind the actor instead of the righteousness of the act itself. Throughout this play, the empirical immorality of murder is ignored. A man’s ethics are surely corrupt when the taking of another’s life for the sake of politics is merited. Therefore, Shakespeare ought not have erroneously depicted the slaying of Caesar as a satisfactory method of seizing control of ancient Rome. Brutus compares Caesar, whom was soon to be crowned, to "a serpent’s egg which hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous" who must be killed while still in its shell.
Unlike Caesar, Brutus is able to separate completely his public life from his private life; by giving priority to matters of state, he epitomizes Roman virtue. Torn between his loyalty to Caesar and his allegiance to the state, Brutus becomes the tragic hero of the play. Julius Caesar - A great Roman general and senator recently returned to Rome in triumph after a successful military campaign. While his good friend Brutus worries that Caesar may aspire to dictatorship over the Roman republic, Caesar seems to show no such inclination, declining the crown several times. Yet while Caesar may not be unduly power-hungry, he does possess his share of flaws.
Through words and actions William Shakespeare paints the picture that Brutus is a virtuous individual who believes in and stands by certain moral traits. In the preceding discussions of the assassination of Julius Caesar, Brutus tells the conspiracy that Caesar must be killed in a decent
“O that we then could come by Caesar’s spirit / And not dismember Caesar! But alas, / Caesar must bleed for it! And gentle friends, / Lets kill him boldly, but not wrathfully;” (II, i, 170-172). Brutus started from being Caesar’s friend, to wanting to kill him; he listens to others’ ideas and takes them as his own, changing his perspective
In his view, the end to political instability justifies the means no matter how shady they may be. He states, “Many have imagined republics and principalities that have never been seen or known to exist in reality. For there is such a difference between the way men live and the way they ought to live.... because anyone who determines to act in all circumstances the part of a good man must come to ruin among so many who are not good.” (Machiavelli p.186) Many of the virtues advocated for in The Prince are apparent in Claudius’ character from William Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. Hamlet tells of the various activities that take place during a questionable shift of royal power in Denmark. It is the acquisition and maintenance of this power that shows just how Machiavellian Claudius’ character is in the play.
He undermines Brutus, conveyed through his lamenting tone “thou art the ruins of the noblest man” to further challanege the perspective that caesars thirst for power was a threat to the roman republic. Shakespeare furthers these conflicting perspectives in Act 3 scene 2 to demonstrate the power of political rhetoric. In the funerary speeches, Brutus’ patriotic tone in “not that I loved Caesar less but that I loved rome more” representes him as a protector of the roman republican values that Caesar threatened. This is sharply
An idol like this means Caesar did not have good thoughts, and all he wanted was power and wanted people to bow down to him. Julius spent his time working towards gaining power and becoming dictator of Rome (A&E
I believe Romeo killed Tybalt because Tybalt was the killer of his best friend Mercutio. I bet if thou were in the same situation as Romeo, thou would have revenged your beloved friend. It was all out of self defense Prince. Another reason to forget your prosecution on Romeo is because Tybalt was the one to start the fight when he drew his sword requesting
When he decides to side with the conspirators, was Brutus in possession of any solid evidence to convince him that Caesar would become a tyrant in the event of his being the dictator of Rome for life? To answer this question genuinely, it is necessary to examine his conduct in a broader perspective. This is what he confesses to himself: I have not known when his affections swayed More than his reason. But ’tis a common proof That lowliness is young ambition’s ladder, Act 2.i 20-22 If it is so, is it in conformity with his honour, integrity and sense of natural justice to conclude that the country can be saved only by killing his beloved friend? Considered from his own point of view, the
Brutus never gives in to ideas others force upon him. When Cassius tries to persuade Brutus to kill Caesar he says, “what you have said I will consider… Brutus had rather be a villager than to repute himself a son of Rome” (I.ii.23). This shows that Brutus cannot be persuaded; he will consider the point, but in the end he will do what he thinks is right. Brutus cares about the people; whatever he does is for Rome. Brutus states that his role in Caesar's murder was to help Rome and not for himself, he proves this when he states “if then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” (III.ii.117) Even his enemy Mark Antony says "this was the