Do Consequences Depend on Motives in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps?

1103 WordsFeb 19, 20184 Pages
An American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr once said, “All human sin seems so much worse in its consequences than in its intentions.” In this statement, Niebuhr exclaims that the consequences of a situation are undeniably much worse than the motivation of one’s instigation of their actions. This applies to the intentions and, more importantly, the consequences of the characters in both the play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and film Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps directed by Oliver Stone. Even though some people have honorable intentions and mean no harm, the consequences can still be disastrous. In much the same way, those with fraudulent intentions also suffer in the end. Situations like these can be accurately viewed through both the play and the film. The characters Brutus and Jacob Moore have no other reason but to act in a worthy way. While Cassius and Gordon Gekko have deceptive intentions, consequences incur similar to Brutus and Jacob Moore. The intentions may seem like the most important consideration in a decision, but, in reality, the penalties can be the same no matter what the motives are. A motive to kill one’s best friend requires deep thinking and a reasonable intention. Brutus, Caesar’s best friend, has taken into consideration why he thinks killing Caesar is necessary. Although Brutus is Caesar’s best friend, he has to come to conclusion that murdering him is his final decision when he asserts, “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome

More about Do Consequences Depend on Motives in Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare and Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps?

Open Document