Seeking revenge through the form of violence in order to establish justice was one of the problems that arose in the House of Atreus. The “curse” that was placed on the house caused the family members to murder one another, thinking it’s the right thing to do. The House of Atreus represents the First Civilization in Ancient Mesopotamia and how corrupted the laws and the execution of justice was developed, even though Hammurabi, the Babylonian Empire’s ruler, thought that it would keep society in order (Strayer 95). The law required the citizens to fight for justice by fighting fire with fire or as stated in the Law Code of Hammurabi, “If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out” (Strayer 96). This law of vengeance …show more content…
As stated by Athene, “The jury is divided equally….Therefore my vote decides it. Orestes is acquitted” (Hughes 186). Athene knew that if she punished Orestes, then she would be allowing the traditional laws of vengeance of the First Civilization to continue and it would never end. She allowed Orestes to defend himself by presenting his story of why he killed his own mother in front of a group of jury, and he was proposed as not guilty (Hughes 176-186). The Furies, being the old gods, represents the First Civilization ideals and laws, where vengeance is how they deal with justice. Athene, on the other hand, represents the newer laws and finding true justice, since she’s one of the newer gods. Athene tries to persuade the Furies that society wouldn’t be able to make any social progressions or improves if they maintain the same laws that shaped the First Civilization and allows them to obtain power if they allow the changes into the civilization (Hughe 187-193). This compromise that Athene had proposed has established a transition from the older civilization to the newer one, linking those two good ideas from each together in order to make progress in society while promoting peace and harmony. This can be seen as the developing stages for democracy for Athens later down the road (Minehan
Ancient laws were brutal. Babylonian laws, like Hammurabi's Code, included physical torture and death as punishments. The rule behind these punishments was "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."Hammurabi was the name of the king in the city-state of Babylon who ruled for nearly 4,000 years ago.This code was a set of 282 laws that maintained order. Hammurabi's Code was unjust because accidents were punished, punishments for intentional damage was extreme, and it focused on revenge instead of preventing future crime.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
The Greeks, as portrayed by Homer, are a very vengeful people. Throughout The Odyssey, a theme of vengeance is dominant. These displays of retribution come from different entities for fairly different reasons. So why is revenge such a factor in The Odyssey? Fear and the overwhelming feeling of payback are two answers. Homer gives numerous examples of how certain characters demonstrate their power in a fury of rage. He writes of the payback Zeus gives to those who break the rules, of Poseidon’s hatred towards Odysseus, and of Odysseus’s revenge to those who have dishonored his home.
When the case is taken to trial Antigone takes an excessive amount of criticism and beating from her friends and colleagues as well as the media. She is said to be inhuman and her prerogative to why she has chosen to defend this demand woman, Medea is questioned. In addition, her place in society as a prominent "female" attorney is disregarded because her moral and ethical values are questioned. Yet, despite these terrible things, Antigone holds her head up high and walks into the courtroom determined to defend her client as best she could. In this courtroom it is inexplicable to anyone how somebody could murder her own children to teach her husband a lesson, every individual has forgotten their oath and placed their own personal opinion into their work, including Judge Good.
The act of revenge is the most honorable of all types of justice. Killing those who kill people you care about exhibits your loyalty to the man or woman who is deceased. Even though the cost was killing his mother, Orestes did avenge his father's death. Aeschylus and Sophocles show their fellow Athenians that although it may not be the most pleasurable and best looking solution, revenge is the most just. Although problems and criticism did arise from his actions, Orestes did exactly what he was suppose to do in the given situation.
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
And so is the story of the Aztec creation. They based their lifestyle on the examples set by the gods and goddesses in the story, thus they led violent lives. The Aztecs saw no wrong in torturing, maiming, and decapitating their neighbors for the gods. They were a savage people, and this savagery would be their downfall.
Bar-elli, G. and Heyd, D. (1986), Can revenge be just or otherwise justified?. Theoria, 52: 68–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-2567.1986.tb00100.x
...purpose is “to unmask the hypocrisy and show how the meaning of Justice is being perverted” . He is not prepared to argue, leaving Socrates victorious. Here, Socrates’s method of argumentative questioning is insufficient and naïve against a stubborn, powerful and philosophically certain moral skeptic. This is confirmed by the change in investigative approach in the latter books. Thus the ‘earlier’ Plato cannot adequately respond to Thrasymachus’s immoralist view of Justice.
When a person is accused of a crime they are either found innocent or guilty. This is the basic idea of justice and it is what many feel needs to happen if someone has done something controversial. In the play The Oresteia by Aeschylus, the story of Clytemnestra guilt or innocents is questioned. She does many things that people are not too happy with and those controversial actions throughout the story, mainly in the first part Agamemnon get her into the trouble. As we explore the case that builds against her innocents by exploring the killings of Agamemnon and Cassandra and the boastful expression about the killings.
Antigone fought for the right of her brother and Socrates believed that he had to prove to himself that what God had told him was correct and in order to do so he had to include others. Ismene was Antigone’s sister who pushed her away when she needed her the most. Being that is was there brother who was not buried and all she wanted was her to help give there brother the proper burial because family is what’s most in important but instead Ismene was in fear and did not want to have any attendance but that did not stop Antigone from doing what was right. Because her faith was strong she caused an audience who stood behind her “No woman has ever had a fate that’s so unfair (they) say when what she did deserves honor and fame.”(page 30 line694-695) proves that what Antigone did was good and not bad and they are happy of what she did. Compared to Socrates who has for 70 years stood up for himself from his accusers, he did not let their bad mouth of him stop him from proving what god of Delphi has brought upon him , in order for the court to believe him he had express himself . After Socrates finish pleading his case of corrupting the youth and impiety of worshiping another god, the jury announced the amount of votes. 280 saw Socrates’ to be guilty and 221 found him not guilty. Socrates supposed that none of the jury would even consider his plead, so to him and too see a fair amount of
Throughout history, revenge, or vengeance, has been altered by several cultures and even the American culture. This is shown throughout many ancient greek epics. Throughout these two epics, what is just revenge and what the action of revenge is are much different than what Revenge is seen through today’s society. Revenge is the main theme in The Iliad, with Achilles’ revenge on Agamemnon and Hector, and in The Odyssey, with Poseidon’s revenge on Odysseus and Odysseus’s revenge on the Suitors, and these epics define how revenge was seen in the ancient Greek world.
To right a wrong, appeals to most westernized people. The westward movement in the United States depicts harsh times where lawlessness was the norm. Some people felt compelled then to stand up for what was right, as evidenced in the Battle at the OK Corral. Even old shows like Gunsmoke displayed Marshall Dillon the empowered individual to stand up for the law and protect the rights of the townspeople. These examples reflect both revenge and justice all parties involved in a conflict where a wrong needs to be righted. As laws have been established and enforced to provide a sense of order, the need for revenge is no longer justifiable nor soul cleansing because some people thrive on vengeance, some people thrive on old prejudices, and others are hero seekers which does not achieve the desired end result.