Essay Morality And Power

Without being either the ones who made this law or the first to apply it after it was laid down, we applied it as one in existence...and one that will endure for all time,” (Thuc., V, 105). The Athenians see no injustice in doing simply as their nature impels them to do. In fact, the Athenians see their offer of subjugation to the Melian people as more than reasonable, “What we will demonstrate is that we are here to help our empire and that there is salvation for your city in what we are now about to say, since we hope to rule over you without trouble and let both parties benefit as you are saved,” (Thuc., V, 91). Following their belief in doing what is necessary to strengthen themselves, even at the expense of others, is what brings Athens to Melos.

Moral courage is to raise your hand, overcome one’s fear, and claim for something that is wrong. A military leader exerts his power influencing with his positon power (in case of military the rank) and/or personal power (how does one person is seen in the organization). The leader, who has a position power, and doesn’t claim for something that is wrong or exerts moral courage, take the risk of loosing personal power and credibility within his organization. If the senior leader exerts moral courage within an cohesive organization he will probably gain personal power and credibility throught the organization. It means that his organization will support and trust on him. For this reason the leader should has to take into account many factors:

Action from necessity is a constantly recurring theme in Thucydides’ The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War. A sentiment used to explain the growth of the Athenian Empire which some Athenians espoused to an assembly at Sparta best quantifies necessity, “. . . we were necessarily compelled at first to advance the hegemony to where it is—especially by fear, and then by honor, and later by benefit.” (Selected Passages 1.75.3). This claim, referred to as the Athenian Thesis, is used to advance the two following implications: all states act with the motivations of fear, honor and interest and no one can condemn a state for doing so. The Athenian Thesis influences the way many of the Athenian elite structure their patterns of reasoning in both noticeable and subtle ways.

He is both logical and ethical. Creon is talking to his “people” and he says that he knows that no one will just follow a person around like a mindless drone. He says that his rules are the law and if you fight for your country you will die in honor and will be praised for it, but if you betray your country for another you will be left for the dogs and birds to feed on you. He says that, that is his command is a wise decision. “I am aware, of course, that no ruler can expect complete loyalty from his subjects until he has been tested in office.” “These are my principles, at any rate, and that is why I have made the following decision concerning the sons of Oedipus: Eteocles, who died as a man should die, fighting for his country, is to be buried with full military honors, with all the ceremony that is usual when the greatest heroes die; but his brother Polyneices, who broke his exile to come back with fire and sword against his native city and the shrines of his fathers’ gods, whose one idea was to spill the blood of his blood and sell his own people into slavery–– Polyneices, I say, is to have no burial: no man is to touch him or say the least prayer for him; he shall lie on the plain, unburied; and the birds and the scavenging dogs can do with him whatever they like.This is my command, and you can see the wisdom behind it”(196). Creon is being logical. He is being logical because he is setting an example to the people of his country. His

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

Creon has no toleration for people who place personal beliefs over the common good. He believes that government and law is the supreme authority, and civil disobedience is worst form of sin. The problem with Creon’s argument is he approaches He approaches every dilemma that requires judgement through descriptive generalizations. In contrast to the morality defined by Aristotle in his Nicomachaean Ethics, Creon shows that he is deaf to the knowledge of particulars--of place, time, manner, and persons, which is essential for moral reasoning. In short, he does not effectively bring together general principles and specific situations Creon does not acknowledge that emotion, and perception are as critical to proper moral consideration as reason. This explains why he does not respond accordingly with the reasoning of the guard, Tiresias the prophet, Antigone, her sister Ismene, or even his own son Haemon. Throughout the whole play, Creon emphasizes the importance of practical judgement over a sick, illogical mind, when in fact it is him who has the sick, illogical mind. He too exhibits pride in his argument. To Antigone and most of the Athenians, possessing a wise and logical mind means acknowledging human limitations and behaving piously towards the gods. Humans must take a humble attitude towards fate and the power of the gods, yet Creon mocks death throughout the play. He doest not learn his lesson until the end of the play when he speaks respectfully of

After appeasing the Chorus and the audience, Creon justifies his right to rule the state, legitimizing this takeover of power. He states that he “now possess(es) the throne and all its powers, as I [he] is closet kin to the dead.” Creon reiterates that his takeover was not due to individual reasons or his greed, but because of his divine rights. By putting his transferal of power due to the gods, the Chorus will be less likely to question his right to rule Thebes. Creon, as the new ruler from the gods, showcases his ability to rule by stating his principles as “a man in command of an entire city.” His political ideals largely consist of placing loyalty to polis over philos and structuring it before the justification of handing out such a proclamation seems to iterate that his proclamation was not due to his love of kin (philos) but due to his strict political approach and loyalty towards the city state (polis). Creon, as a prudent, astute politician, assigns such a structure to his speech and links the different contexts with discourse markers because in doing so, he first gains the trust and confidence of the Elders, a central party of Thebes, then justifies his power and his ability and finally provides an explanation of his proclamation regarding the diverse treatment provided to the

Throughout the play, Creon shows many examples of how he is imperfect. One example would be how he believes that the state is primary to his family and relationships, “If this is your pleasure, Creon, treating our city’s enemy and our friend this way … the power is yours, I suppose, to enforce it with the laws, both for the dead and all of us, the living,” this quotation said by the leader of the chorus describes how the elder people of Thebes respect their family more than the state, but they held back on their opinions, knowing of what Creon, the leader, wanted to hear (235-240). Another example of how Creon shows the audience of how he is imperfect is when, Creon meets with Haemon. Creon argues with Haemon about how people should act towards the country which they reside in, “But whoever steps out of line, violates the laws or presumes to hand out orders to his superiors, he’ll win no praise from me. But that man the city places in authority, his orders must be obeyed, large and small, right and wrong,” Creon believes since he has the highest throne in his country, that he should be obeyed whether the circumstance (745-751). Lastly, Creon demonstrates to the audience that he is imperfect by wanting to protect his country too much. This is visible when Creon sentences Antigone to a slow death, because of burying her brother, who was outcasted as a traitor. Creon put the state over his family which will lead to the complete

This quote explains the main conflict of the play. Creon has ordered that Polynices, Antigone’s brother, cannot receive a proper burial because in Creon’s eyes he is a traitor. Polynices fought against his brother to claim the throne of Thebes, the pair ended up killing each other. Tiresias tries to tell Creon that he is wrong to do this because it is angering the gods that he is denying them a body. Tiresias even warns Creon not to be stubborn, “Stubborness/ brands you for stupidity-pride is a crime.” (1137-1138). Pride in Greek tragedies is most often the cause of a characters downfall and Creon is no exception.

But consider how Creon came to make the declaration. The decree may fit the crime but how would an Athenian feel about the way that Creon came to his decision? The Athenians were very proud of their democratic decision-making and Creon's despotic and forceful control over his new city can not have been received well. His decree is made, not in with consultation with the elders in a referendum, on his own. He has not even consulted Tiresias even though he trusts him implicitly "I've never wavered from your advice before"(Sophocles). The edict he makes on his own and he merely informs the people of his decision ("if this is your pleasure...the power is yours, I suppose"). Even though Creon himself has said that the "ship of state is safe", he is still acting like the city needs martial governance. The tyrannical behaviour of Creon means that he gives little chance to the sentry to explain his story and is very threatening in his treatment of the man "never save your life"(Sophocles). The right to free speech (parresia) was a basic principle of Athenian democracy and as such was attacked by the enemies of democracy, oligarchs and tyrants. It is this free speech which is only minimally given to the sentry "Still talking? You talk

Before advancing to the throne, Oedipus had unknowingly killed Laius, his father and the king of Thebes. Shortly after killing the king, he married the dead king’s wife, his mother. He had committed incest by marrying and having children with his own mother. As a result he became father of Polyneices, Eteocles, Antigone, and Ismene. Oedipus stabs his eyes out and his sons, Polyneices and Eteocles killed themselves in combat, over the power of the throne. Creon was in the process of reconstructing Thebes from the ruins that his own family created. He also had to make a name for himself, after all the chaos the past rulers had made. If Creon did not set an example for civilians they would simply rebel. Creon was to stand firm by his word because no one is above the law, no matter who committed the act. In other words Creon was not a villain; he was the antagonist of Antigone. Imagine how biased Creon would appear to the Theban population if he did not pursue the punishment that he himself had instituted. In agreement to his law, Creon’s intentions were just. There’s no doubt about it, Creon’s law was harsh but when truly analyzing the situation, Polyneices was a traitor because he allied with other cities and attacked his homeland. Creon’s strong and steadfast attitudes were to support Thebes. But unfortunately, he was a little too late to understand that his fierce dedication to his decree was an error on his part.

However, the central conflict is between the protagonist, Creon, and the antagonist, Antigone. This conflict can be classified as Man vs. Man. Creon and Antigone compete with one another on the basis of which law is superior, man’s law or god’s law. Creon believing that man-made laws should not be defied, is forced to, due to his beliefs, sentence Antigone to death upon defying the law. This leads to the internal conflict present within Creon. Should he kill Antigone for defying man-made law or acquit her because her intent to follow god’s law? Due to his relentless and uncompromising beliefs of man-made law being superior to all other laws, he is forced to sentence Antigone to death, though many disagree. It seems as the moral thing to do, however, in the end, it turns out to be more than he could bargain for.

Book I of Plato's Republic could be a standalone piece based on all the important topics discussed between the characters in a mere chapter. One section of Book I stood out to me more than most, and that was Thrasymachus’s definition of justice. His observations on justice are often “seen as the first fundamental critique of moral values”. Thrasymachus describes justice as being in the interest of the stronger with an argument that ultimately holds more weaknesses than strengths.

The book written by Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, contains two controversial debates between distinguished speakers of Athens. The two corresponding sides produce convincing arguments which can be taken as if produced as an honest opinion or out of self-interest. The two debates must be analyzed separately in order to conclude which one and which side was speaking out of honest opinion or self-interest, as well as which speakers are similar to each other in their approach to the situation.

This essay will consider the quote by Plato ‘the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. It will be discussed how this quote is still as relevant today as it was when Plato first constructed the statement.