12/3 - Witch-slapped: Macbeth's Fall From Grace
( If you watch GoT, do you think Cersei is evil or chose to be evil? )
Question 1: Why do people who are not "evil" take the first step into evil? What, for instance, is involved in taking that first step "down the primrose path to the everlasting bonfire" (Macbeth, 2.3)? What are the consequences of the individual choosing evil (particularly the internal consequences)? Use examples from the text to support your opinion.
People who are not born "evil", per say, choose to act in ways they know is wrong because they realize there is no real benefit to not doing so. For example, a poor man who works three minimum wage jobs and still can't support his family comes to find out that he can make a lot of money by selling drugs for a gang. If he chooses to sell the drugs, he is compromising his morals by promoting the use of drugs and contributing to the number of addicts and drug-related deaths. However, if he chooses not to sell the drugs, he is passing up on the opportunity to have the money to feed his family, to send his children to college, etc. In addition, many people the man knows are involved in the business and are clearly earning more money than him and benefiting from it. In my mind, it's kind of an easy and blameless decision. Feeding your children will always trump feeling pure and good about yourself.
Macbeth realizes for himself that he is not benefiting from not killing King Duncan. Refusing to kill Duncan might make Macbeth a good person, but he's still a good person that doesn't have real power. Macbeth might sleep at night having not murdered Duncan, but he's sleeping as someone whose name won't go down in history, someone who could have been truly great. And to me, thinking about the values and short life spans in that time period, it doesn't seem like too hard or absurd of a decision. Lady Macbeth states, "When you durst do it, then you were a man; And to be more than what you were, you would Be so much more the man" (Macbeth, 1.7). Lady Macbeth helps him realize how greatly benefited Macbeth would be after killing King Duncan and becoming King, and that because of that the risk of killing him is worth it.
It may be a fairly "edgy" thing to say, but I do think that in a lot of cases, sacrificing some of your morals is essential to be "successful" in our flawed human society. I don't necessarily justify or support this notion, but I think it should definitely be taken account, especially in the justice system in certain cases.
It may be a fairly "edgy" thing to say, but I do think that in a lot of cases, sacrificing some of your morals is essential to be "successful" in our flawed human society. I don't necessarily justify or support this notion, but I think it should definitely be taken account, especially in the justice system in certain cases.
I think your analysis is very interesting. You talked about some things in a way I hadn't really thought about before, like how sacrificing some morals is necessary to be "successful". I think that this is very true under the modern day interpretation of successful. I also really like how you connected the beginning of your analysis to things that are more understandable today. Overall, I really enjoyed reading your analysis and gaining new perspectives!
ReplyDeleteWow what a blog post. I enjoyed your analogy using a drug seller who does so in order to support his own personal family. It's a good example of how justice is most times is blind to the situations surrounding crimes, or how sometimes it's necessary to do something morally evil in order to survive. I also liked how you put your view of Macbeth's internal conflict as a figure who wouldn't go down be remembered in history. I never thought that Macbeth had that problem, nor can I relate to that problem myself. I also agree with your last paragraph. I know I've personally gone against my own morals to be more successful in society, but that also might just be the result of living in a competitive society.
ReplyDeleteLove your refreshing and #edgy take on the concept of being "evil." I agree that there's certainly a gray area between good and bad, and it's ultimately subject to the nature of the situation. And in true Rachel fashion, you certainly acknowledged the harsh reality of the world in which we live. It's interesting that you chose to consider a parallel universe in which Macbeth doesn't kill King Duncan. It all-the-more supported your point that in order to make history, you might just have to break some rules, to paraphrase the famous quote, "Well-behaved women seldom make history."
ReplyDeleteI really liked your analysis, especially when comparing it to other peoples interpretations and answers to this question. I like how you similarly believe people are motivated to be pushed into evil, but you use an example of someone being forced into evil rather than choosing it for purely self gain. I think this reveals a more nuisanced view of evil, and one that I really enjoyed. Great Post!
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about your idea of Macbeth sleeping as someone whose name won't go down in history or someone who could have been "truly great". It seems to imply that you can only be a truly great person if you have power or make a big deal out of yourself. I do think that it is possible to be great without being well known, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant. Otherwise, a really interesting analysis. Our society is a little screwed up if everyone needs to sacrifice some of their morals or personal beliefs to get by- but I do think you're right. It sucks but so does a lot of how our society functions, hence why you referred to it as flawed.
ReplyDeleteI love how you showed an example that demonstrates where "being good" is actually a hindrance to survival. I would actually venture out to say, yes, if one chooses to do so, doing things that are against the prescribed morals of society can be advantageous, and even beneficial. Do people at the top follow rules, or go along with society's ideas? I'd venture to say no, the don't. Especially with the Mueller investigation that's occurring now, it's clear to see that even our own government doesn't follow the rules. The real question here is if the time that one has in power is worth the possible negative and harsh repercussions, and I think the answer lies in how much one can get away with, and for how long.
ReplyDelete