Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
The value attributed to the first virtue, wisdom, whose essence lay in “the perception of truth and with ingenuity,” concerns the comprehension of the nature of justice (7). In fact, Cicero asserts, within the public sphere, “unless learning is accompanied by the virtue that consists...
... middle of paper ...
...within the political realm. To that end, Cicero’s hope for the future necessitates the populace possess the virtues as well, most importantly wisdom, so that they may quickly recognize when a dishonorable course of action occurs and needs to be remedied. Julius Caesar’s recent assassination, and Cicero’s lamentation of Caesar’s forceful dissolution of the Republic, often becomes apparent within the text, most notably in the warning against “dangerous flatterers” (19). To avoid the fate of the Republic, the populace must also posses the virtues, namely wisdom, so that unjust action can be discerned and halted, lest a leader gain too much power and dissolve popular sovereignty.
Works Cited
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. On Duties. Edited by M.T. Griffin and E.M. Atkins. 19th ed. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. New York:
Cambridge UP, 2013.
Cicero and Cato the Younger were the premier orators and statesmen that the Roman Republic produced. Both enjoyed political success within Rome during the waning years of the Republic. In addition, both were participants and witnesses of the collapse of the Republic. Before Caesar could gain full control over Rome, Cato committed voluntaria mors, voluntary death or more commonly known, suicide. After Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C.E., Cicero was murdered in 43 B.C.E. as he was placed on the proscription list during the triumvirate of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus. Cato and Cicero were the defenders of the republic and in their eyes freedom as well. Following their deaths Cato enjoyed fame for his supposed martyrdom, such as Lucan’s Bellum Civile, while Cicero was lauded for his work on ethics, philosophy, and the ideal statesman. However, Cicero, not Cato, should be considered the martyr on behalf of the Republic and freedom due in a part to his insistence on maintaining the republic after the assassination of Caesar. Cato was the supposed martyr that Rome received but Cicero is the martyr Rome deserved and needed. To navigate this proposal a foundation of the concept of martyrdom is required. Secondly, define how the republic equates to freedom. Followed by the exploration how Cato is falsely elaborated upon and remembered as a martyr, and finally the illumination of why Cicero is the martyr the republic deserved.
Horatius Cocles demonstrates Roman values with his readiness to assert himself for the good of the community despite any ramifications. He even attempts to advise his men in the direction of virtue by claiming “that it was vain for them to seek safety” (Livy, 20). These men appear to follow standards typical of the Greeks, as their personal motives guide their actions instead of the needs of others. Their lack of concern for the entire state of the Republic is an example of what individuals were not to do. The success of the individual, in this case Horatius, is a victory in Rome, which contrasts the idea of individual arete, valued by the Greeks. The greatest honor for a Roman was saving the life of another Roman whereas in Greek culture, an individual displays excellence in competition (Burger 91). For the Greeks, an individual may achieve honor at the cost of defeating another. In contrast, Romans sought to achieve honor by protecting what was best for all. Therefore, Romans valued self sacrifice while Greeks appear more self-centered (Burger 91). Horatius Cocles demonstrates the values of the Roman society in his steadfast opposition to the enemy. He is a model to the state for his courage in adversity.
Brutus, Honorable Man Brutus, an honorable conspirator? Honorable is defined as genuine, truthful and displaying integrity, while a conspirator is defined as one that engages in an agreement to commit an illegal or wrongful act. Anyone can clearly see that these two words do not belong together. There are also other reasons why Brutus should not be considered honorable. In the play, three distinct acts can be recalled.
Julius Caesar was the dictator of Rome in his prime. Some say his journey to the top was paved in corruption, other claimed he was a man of the people. His enemies knew to fear him for his ruthlessness. His followers adored him because everything that he had succeeded in was done for them. Unfortunately, his betrayal transpired by his senators who felt he had grown too powerful and stabbed him to death. However, Julius Caesar’s connection to the political world, his innate ability as an army general, and his desire to advocate for the rights of his people made him a great leader.
Klagge, JC 1989, Virtue: Aristotle or Kant? Virginia Tech Department of Philosophy, Web version accessed 14 May 2014.
2)Cicero, Marcus Tullius., George William Featherstonhaugh, and Anthony Imbert. The Republic of Cicero,. New-York:: Published by G. & C. Carvill, 108 Broadway., 1829. Print.
Practical wisdom is knowledge of how to secure the ends of human life and for a man who demonstrates this quality his mark should be to be able to tell what is good for himself and his ultimate goal of a good life. In this paper, I will be agreeing with Aristotle’s idea that virtue is a state of character concerned with ones choices and one’s ability to reason.
In Shakespeare's play Julius Caesar, Brutus and Cassius are both considered honorable men by the public. But, like all traits, honor is in the eye of the beholder. Honor is defined as evidence or symbols of distinction. Those who are placed in power are often chosen because of their traits, which include being honorable. If those in power have any faults, it could diminish their position in the eyes of the public.
While reading the play “Julius Caesar”, deception, betrayal, and exaggeration were perceived throughout. Cassius was the character that fit these qualities the most. He can be compared to the former president, Richard Nixon. He was the United States 37th President of the United States. He was voted into office receiving great admiration for his speeches, and work he had previously done. When he was elected, it was the time during the Vietnam War. His goal as president was to have reconciliation (Sidey and Freidel). He gave great speeches by using rhetoric; a famous speech is 425 - Address to the Nation on the War in Vietnam, November 3, 1969 rhetorical devices that he used in that speech was by saying “Good evening, my fellow Americans” (Peters) it gave the audience a sense of familiarity within the audience, and Nixon (Zielenski). In Nixon’s “Checker’s Speech” he tells his side of the story and his role in the Watergate Scandal. In his speech he uses rhetorical devices including repetition and anaphora, “I say that it was morally wrong if any of that $18,000 went to Senator Nixon, for my personal use. I say that it was morally wrong if it was secretly given and secretly handled. And I say that it was morally wrong if any of the contributors got special favors for the contributions that they made” (The History Place ). In the same speech, he uses the rhetorical question, “Well, how do you pay for these and how can you do it legally?” (The History Place ). Lastly, in the “Checker’s Speech” he uses irony when he states “I have a theory, too, that the best and only answer to a smear or an honest misunderstanding of the facts is to tell the truth. And that is why I am here tonight. I want to tell you my side of the case. This is a us...
...ation and well being of a country, people, and republic. “‘This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caesar; he, only in a general honest thought and common good to all, made one of them’”(998). Although a seemingly menacing traitor to his country at first, Brutus makes the journey to a sympathetic and noble tragic hero in the end.
The noblest ones take risks and face the consequences and challenges to prove what is right. Brutus loved Rome and when Cassius asks him to join the conspiracy, he only agrees knowing that Caesar`s death would make Rome a better place. Killing Caesar was hard for him to do, but it was a risk he was willing to take, knowing it would bring democracy to Rome. After Brutus forces himself to make the last stab in Caesar`s heart, he mentions in his speech, “Not that I loved Caesar / less, but that I have loved Rome more” (iii. ii. 21-22). Brutus` quote shows how much he loved Rome and the things he was willing to do for it, even if i...
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
Greed, ambition, and the possibility of self-gain are always constant in their efforts to influence people’s actions. In Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, a venerable politician, becomes a victim of the perpetual conflict between power-hungry politicians and ignorant commoners. He is a man of honor and good intentions who sacrifices his own happiness for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, his honor is strung into a fine balance between oblivion and belief and it is ultimately the cause of his downfall. His apparent obliviousness leads him to his grave as his merciful sparing of Mark Antony’s life, much like Julius Caesar’s ghost, comes back to haunt him. Overall, Brutus is an honest, sincere man who holds the lives of others in high regard while he himself acts as a servant to Rome.
For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In
In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, the story revolves around the various individuals who would vie for control of the Roman Empire. All of these individuals exhibit various attributes, values, and techniques in order to facilitate this goal, from Cassius’ intelligence, Brutus’ charm and honor, to Antony’s gift to drive a crowd. And although all three desire to become the new strongman leader of Rome, it is Antony who succeeds gaining the most control through his own specific talents, most specifically noted at Caesar’s funeral. At the funeral scene, Antony exhibits several qualities beneficial to a Roman leader, such as oratory and appeasement skills. The dialogue depicted in Act III, scene ii provides a valuable and insightful perspective on how these values were desirable for leadership in the late Roman Republic.