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.
“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
However, Claudius had a chance to make a choice, but since his desires for power and treasures were so overwhelming, he chose the murderous path. Knight states "Claudius cannot be blamed for his actions/ they are [rather] forced on him," (Knight, 6-7) and he argues that Claudius's murderous actions and plot of killing were backed up by self-defense to protect from Hamlet from taking away his throne and love of his life. Knight argued that his human sins of greed and envy foreshadowed his rightful judgment which leads him into these behaviors of wanting everything for himself. Furthermore, Knight claims that Hamlet is "inhuman, whose consciousness is centered on death/ As King of Denmark he would have a thousand times more dangerous than Claudius" (Knight, 9-10) because of the impact of finding out the truth
He is convinced by letters written by Cinna that the civilians of Rome request him to prevent Caesar from gaining power. He then agrees to join the group who wishes to kill Caesar. He has a distinct perspective that majority of the conspirators hold and that is that Caesar has gained too much power, he shows this through extreme exaggeration (hyperbole) in the event of Caesar’s funeral, “had you rather Caesar alive and die as slaves, or Caesar dead and live as free men?” It evokes or suggests conflicting perspectives which urge the audience to determine whether Brutus is truly a noble Roman or a coward
Nevertheless one murder didn't comfort him, he thinks he needs to secure his position. So he goes off and hires hit men to kill who he thinks is his enemy, the one who can take his power, Banqo. Soon enough he finds himself ordering the slaughter of a traitors family, which is when remorse never enters his thoughts. Macbeth’s greed and ambitions are the sheer motivators of his killings and that is evident throughout the journey of the play. As Shakespeare once wrote , “Fair is foul and foul is fair” (Act I, Sc.I, Line
Winston secretly started to defy certain rules and started thinking against Big Brother. He started writing in his and “Down With Big Brother” which would have got him tortured or even murdered. His relationship with Julia was purposed to rebel against the Party. A perfect hero he isn't. He does have his own selfish reasoning for revolting even though his main goal is to undermine the Party and Big Brother.
When the soliloquy of Cassius in Act 1 Sc. 2 begins it is evident of Cassius’ Epicurean view and his evil desires and intention to use Brutus to murder Caesar, ‘Caesar doth bear me hard, but he loves Brutus…’ the contrast apparent in Cassius’ statement exemplifies that he uses this knowledge to his advantage to coordinate who he would influence to plot against Caesar. The use of rhetorical devices in Brutus’ soliloquy ‘Shall Rome stand under one man’s awe?’ targets Brutus’ fear of Caesar’s misuse of power and dictatorship further supplementing our understanding of the influence that Cassius had implanted onto Brutus, successfully being able to justify and solidify Brutus’ will to kill Caesar. Cassius twists Brutus’ patriotism towards Rome to motivate Brutus into thinking that Caesar’s intentions for the Roman Public would be used in ways that would lead to the fall of Rome. ‘Let’s kill him boldly, but not wrathfully…carve him as a dish fit for the gods’ the use of a metaphor reveals that his intentions are not to kill Caesar out of spite but instead with regret and considers Caesar as a person of a respectful status.
The question everyone is asking is what Brutus does make him noble or an honorable stature. Brutus kills Julius because I believe he is persuaded by Cassius for Rome’s own good. In the play I believe Brutus’s character was very strong and his integrity. The fact that he basically could control the conspirators and over power Cassius definitely showed it. Brutus just wants to do the right thing for Rome, but I do believe when Cassius thinks killing Julius is the best thing for Rome Brutus was easily manipulated and deep down inside Brutus knows that.
This is Brutus’ philosophy when he convinces theconspirators not to kill Antony. “Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius, to cut the headoff and then hack the limbs, like wrath in death and envy afterwards; for Antony is but a limb of Caesar” (II, i, 175-179) Since all the conspirators wanted Brutus’ help they follow what Brutussays and does. Brutus does not wish to spill more blood than has already been spilt. He is defending that which will be left of the remnants of Caesar after they kill him. This is honorable in a abnormal way; Brutus is possibly trying to make up for what he plans to do.
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