Death is everywhere in this play. Pompey is beheaded. Caesar is stabbed. Cinna the poet is tortured and killed in the streets. Soldiers lay dead on the battlefields. Portia burns her esophagus. Cassius orders his servant to run a sword through his body. Titinius stabs himself and Brutus runs into his own sword. With so much violence it is hard not to envision Rome in red.
Think of the various reasons and agendas behind the multiple deaths in the play. Imagine a Rome without the morbidity. Does the violence in this story have a positive result? Can violence ever have a positive result? Analyze the following statement:
Nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed. (Violence and bloodhsed can never have morally good results).
Do you agree or disagree with this statment? Support your answer with references to both the play and real-world application both historical and current.
22 comments:
It is hard to imagine Rome or any other society without morbidity. An unhealthy mental state for all of the world's inhabitants is almost a given when politics or emotions such as greed are forever present. The events of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar seem far-fetched but in today's modern world, factors such as politics or money cause both men and women to act in likelihood of Brutus and the conspirators.
A theme of death runs throughout the entire story, and death and violence go hand in hand, obviously. Brutus killed Caesar because he thought Rome deserved a better leader. The conspirators killed Caesar because they were power hungry - they could care less about Rome's greater good. Later on in the play, Brutus begins to feel guilt about killing his dear friend Caesar. Cassius, who had recruited Brutus and the rest of the conspirators was Brutus' right hand man in the enterprise. The two had a true friendship, although Cassius' reasons for killing Caesar were not honorable like Brutus'. During the battle of Brutus and Cassius vs. Antony and Octavius, Brutus sees triumph while Cassius sees failure. Cassius orders his slave to slay him with the same sword that he killed Caesar with, and Brutus is left alone to fend for himself. Honorable Brutus orders his friend to do the same, and his last words told Caesar to rest in peace.
It seems as though Caesar had gotten revenge on the conspirators. If that is the only side of the argument, then yes, the violence has a positive result. If the events of the play are seen through a bird's eye view, then no. Violence can never have a positive result. Countless lives were lost in the play because of the conspirators. There would not have been any bloodshed if Caius Cassius had not spoon fed Brutus flattery and ill feelings toward Caesar.
Violence and bloodshed are two things that will never have a good outcome. They are not morally write to begin with. Caesar was murdered because he was thought to be ambitious. Brutus and the conspirators got rid of him because they felt Rome would be better off without them. Caesar was one man and one murder seems very insignificant on the statistics of the world, but when one murder turns to thousands of murders, only then does the blunt act of violence leave a mark in history. The Libyan dictator Moammar Khadafy, in Brutus' eyes, could be seen as someone like Caesar. Brutus believes Rome was a thriving city before Caesar. Libyans believe that Libya had the best of everything before Khadafy rose to power. The dictator brought poverty, illness and ignorance to a country, and ordered the massacre of the Libyan people, simply because he felt they are not of significance. How could the murder of the innocent have morally good results?
As Ashley said it would be hard to imagine Rome without violence. In fact, none of us would not even know what Rome was without its violence. Violence draws attention of the people to certain events or subjects. Violence is a way for someone to emphasize how important or controversial a topic is. In the play the Tragedy of Julius Caesar. Brutus truly believes that Caesar is unfit for the job of becoming the head of he Roman Republic. Instead of just protesting Caesar's influence, Brutus ends Caesar's life to prove to the rest of Rome just how dangerous Caesar is the the Romans' way of life. Similarly Portia finds herself needing to prove herself to her husband that she is trustworthy. She can not simply say that Brutus can trust her, but she has to provide an example of how willing she is to cooperate with him. So Portia stabs herself in the thigh to show her husband that she is fully willing to do anything to help her husband.
Today America is proving to all the world that it is a country that loves its own citizens. America is a land that holds its citizens life, liberty, persuit of happiness, and safety. When Islamic Extremists attacked the United States of America, the U.S.A. had to let the world know this act was unacceptable. America could throw a two hour long speech at the problem in an address at a United Nations meeting, but this would inaccurately portray all the rage and sorrow America feels. To ensure America's feeling are properly viewed, America must send in troops to foreign countries to suppress terrorism. America has to prove that no matter how many body bags it takes to establish national security, it will be met. Obviously I disagree with the statement because violence always means something. It might mean to go to hell or that an act is abominable, but there is always an opinion behind the violence which is being expressed.
Email: nicocoup@msn.com
In any civilized society, there is always violence. When Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, and other characters in Julius Caesar are murdered, people grieve for them. However, the chaos in Rome eventually is brought to a peaceful conclusion although many people die for this cause; Octavius finally assumes control which ensures continued capable leadership among the Plebeians.
If you believe that nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed, then you believe that not everything is possible. I totally disagree with the fact that violence and bloodshed can never have good results, morally and otherwise. I feel that sometimes it takes a negative occurrence to yield a positive outcome. For example, in war, soldiers are fighting for their lives, their freedoms, and their countries. They put everything on the line; while both sides suffer many casualties, those soldiers who fight bravely can be proud and can take heart that they are fighting for a just cause. In particular, during World War II, the United States joined forces with the British to combat the Axis powers in order to free the European people.
While some deaths are peaceful (old age), death is an act of violence. When those people who are closest to you perish, it is a sentimental experience; you focus on the good times shared and the extraordinary characteristics of that person. Recently, Senator Giffords, as well as 7 others were shot, or even killed, in Arizona. Luckily, the Senator survived due to quick medical treatment. While this situation was upsetting to the nation, the American people handled the incident well showing their support to the loved ones’ families and bringing the guilty party to justice. Even in such cases of senseless violence, Americans rally around victims with indomitable spirit and support (ie: September 11).
Also, Mother Nature demonstrates time and time again that she is a demanding mistress. For example, after forest fires destroy the old growth in the western United States, new and improved vegetation eventually appears. The same is true after volcanic eruptions. The new soil is very fertile and the growth cycle resumes at a higher level. Despite the recent devastating earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan, new cities will be built and new crops will be planted due to the industrious nature of the Japanese people. Those people who survive such violence will be even stronger and more determined to move forward.
In this way, I agree with Nick and his thoughts that “violence means something. It might mean to go to hell or that an act is abominable, but there is always an opinion behind the violence which is being expressed.” Usually, there is an underlying purpose to violence. Even though Martin Luther King Jr. preached about nonviolent actions and peaceful disagreement, wasn’t his life ended by an act of violence? Although his intentions were praised, even King, Jr., was not able to quell the overriding hatred of humans, as he himself, was murdered in 1963.
e.e.butler@comcast.net
As Liz said, in any civilized society, there is violence. As much death, violence and suicide as there was in Rome, without it the plot of the story could not have moved forward. If Cassius had simply poisoned Caesar, he might have been able to survive it or had Antony take over. The violent circumstances under which the leadership of Rome was changed definitely ended with positive results.
Even though it may not seem like it, violence can have positive end results. When a fight at school breaks out people get hurt, but they either learn to not get into fights again or they learn how to avoid the conflict all together. Another example is when violence breaks out in a country with civil unrest. When two opposing factions of government clash, there is a large amount of violence, but after it is over peace is usually settled back into the country and the natural order of things can resume. In an instance such as this violence is needed to clear the air of confusion and unrest in a society that has no control over its' people.
"Nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed". This is a quote with which I cannot agree with. Whoever stated this seems to not see that violence can be a much better means to an end than other options. I would much rather have gotten into a fight and learned from it then to have let it go a bigger extreme, such as inducing self-harm. Sometimes in order to reach a reasonable conclusion, you need to go through an unreasonable route. Having been through violence means that you took the risk of being hurt in order to come to a conclusion and it also means that you didn't take the easy way out of a predicament. Though not always the safest option, violence definitely has its advantages.
Caesar betrays Pompey; Pompey is Beheaded by Caesar as so; he is betrayed by the plebeians. Caesar is stabbed by Brutus, Cassius and the rest of the conspirators; the people betray Caesar for Brutus. Antony twists the story and betrays Brutus, and so do the plebeians, the list goes on. As Ashley and Nick have said, it’s hard to imagine Rome without morbidity. Every death is stemmed from Betrayal, greed, Jealousy, fear, revenge and the lack of trust. Most of the conspirators killed Caesar out of jealousy; Brutus however kills him to “save” the people of Rome in fear that his power was too great. Brutus though that he would get a positive result from this sort of violence. He felt that everyone would believe him and respect him, such as Antony. But Antony turned against him out of anger and revenge for Caesar’s death. He convinced the plebeians to go on a rampage against the conspirators. A cycle of Death continues until Octavis finally decides to make peace by burying Brutus after he runs through own sword.
Violence can create peace if used correctly. If your willing to kill and evil dictator with a better functioning government waiting then their may be peace. But if you just kill him without thought then their will be nothing but a violent power struggle with the people caught in between. The peace that violence CAN create is only temporary unfortunately. In our world, there is always something to fight about. “Nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed.” This quote is true about violence in the long run. There will always be guilt; (if you’re not a cold hearted person) Not saying there will not be a good outcome, but this can only happen if the violence is used correctly. Rome was still in turmoil after the battles during the play. Violence leads to death and death is permanent. So Violence is something to be used with care. My mama always told me to pick your battles in life. Some just are not worth fighting.
Almost the entire story of The Tragedy of Julius Caesar revolves around violence. Pompey is killed by Caesar, Caesar is murdered by Brutus and the conspirators and then Cassius and Brutus kill themselves. The first death, Pompey's, was due to Caesar's campaign to gain power and therefore need to kill Pompey. The conspirators felt the need to kill Caesar because they felt that he was abusing his power. Brutus and Cassius then kill themselves while fighting against Antony and Octavius' army.
To an outsider none of the violence in the story has a positive affect but in certain instances, for short periods of time, some acts of violence have positice results. Caesar must have believed that at the time, killing Pompey was a good idea and it got rid of his biggest rival. The conspirators believed that killing Caesar would solve all of their problems but because they didn't thihk their actions through, the outcome of their plan turned out much differently from what they expected. The short term affects of violence may be beneficial but the long term affects are never helpful.
I agree with the quote that "nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed." By definition violence is "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws." Violence is never called for or justified. Many people believe that violence is necessary, like Caesar's need to kill Pompey but if violence is necessary to accomplish your goal then you should think about what you are doing and if it is ethical or moral, which it most likely isn't if it calls for violence.
Again, violence and bloodshed can never have morally good results. Think about the fights that occur in school. At the time people get so angry that they will burst out and fight others, letting their anger out as their excuse. At the time yes they are letting out their anger and showing that they are tough but in the end it doesn't matter. They will still face serious consequences. Wars often "resolve" a conflict but the lives destroyed and the hatred instilled in the people involved aren't worth it.
In any society, there is always violence no matter how hard we try not to let his happen it's always there. Violence is one of those things that is unavoidable, at any level or place throughout history. I think that after reading this play, it is hard for me to imagine Rome as anything but bloody and morbid. Throughout this play we see so many people turn from peaceful actions, into violent ones. While we try and fix and correct these acts, its part of society, a part that we cannot change. With so much violence in this play its hard to think of what would happen if there wasn't any violence. Like Ashley said, money often drives people to turn to violence, especially in today's world.
The violence in this play does not have a positive outcome. Many die, and the ones that were left don't know what to do. The people who committed these violent acts could have done all of what they were trying to accomplish and fix without turning to violence.
Violence can sometimes have a positive result, but along with the positive always come the negative aspect; death. For example in wars we see many people die, but in the end things do change, people agree to stuff, and violence can lead to change, which can sometimes be positive.
this statement that nothing good can come from violence is not entirely true. In most cases I would agree and say that violence is not the answer, but once in a while it is the only way to ever made a difference in the world.Like during the anti-slavery movement, they tried to rebel peacefully first, but when that didn't work they had to turn to violence.
raech629@verizon.net
In the play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, death is a reoccurring theme. All of the main characters and some of the subordinate characters die including: Pompey, Caesar, Cassius and even Brutus. The events in this play are very similar to what happens historically. Popular figures in history have died for one reason or the other. There has been billions of revolution to cease a dictator from ruling. An example of this is the country of Libya which now under civil strife, as Ashley Roxas used. Their longtime dictator, Muammar Gaddafi‘s position as ruler is now being threatened. Although it does not seem like the civilians will end up assassinating him, there are clashes with his groups and rebels therefore causing deaths.
In the Tragedy of Julius Caesar, the deaths In Rome are sometimes reasonable and unnecessary. For example, Caesar’s death is unreasonable, as Brutus says before he kills himself. Caesar is said to be too “ambitious” and detrimental to the city of Rome. But the real reason to his death is greed. Cassius uses Brutus to get Caesar out of the way so that he can ensure himself a position in office. Cinna the poet, an innocent man, is also killed in the play. But he is killed because of the barbaric behavior Antony’s supporters.
The number one type of death faced in the play is suicide. Portia, Brutus’ wife, kills herself because she does not know how to handle the question of whether or not her husband is alive or dead. Brutus kills himself because he feels guilty about killing Caesar and finally realizes that it was wrong. Cassius kills because he is scared that Antony’s army will capture him and force him to be a slave. Titinius kills himself because Cassius kills himself.
Truth be told, violence can never have a positive result. Why? Because there is always someone who wants to get revenge- there is always someone doing what he or she is not supposed to be doing. “Nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed.” I agree with this quote 100 percent. Violence begets violence. In other words, all violence does is cause more violence. In the play because Brutus and his conspirators kill Caesar, the rest of Rome turns upside down and unnecessary killings occur. In actuality, living life is harder than what it looks like. Honestly, living anywhere is unsafe. People die every day for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Everything about life is just random. The bombing of the World Trade Center was random. Violence occurs because of human emotion-because someone felt like being in the “killing mood”. All one hears in the news is shootings, terrorist attacks, and more deaths. All violence causes is heart-ache, depression, physical and mental unstableness. After this revenge takes its course………..causing more violence.
eo95@ymail.com
Well, I really think that all these deaths in the city of Rome has been caused either because the people act out on impulse and miscommunication. Cinna died because the plebeians acted out on impulse and just charge in and randomly kill people and conspirator suspects. Cassius kills himself because he thinks that Titinius has died and he blames himself for Titinius' death but in actuality he didn't die and it was all miscommunication and acts of impulse without thinking about the consequences. Soldiers in the battlefield die because they think they are fighting for a good cause but really to prevent their deaths they should have stopped and thought about their cause for a second. That would have probably saved a good amount of lives. At that point of time, life in Rome would be hard to imagine without morbidity, especially an morbid interest in power and conquering. Rome was a very powerful empire and people wanted to be at the top of Rome to get that power. This would cause chaos and fighting and deaths and bloodshed. WELL, maybe violence could have a positive result. It would be more like a sacrifice because you would lose lives but in th end you learn from the mistakes that caused the violence to occur. Just like Efe said, death can be sometimes reasonable but unnecessary. There are other ways to confront the external conflicts happening in Rome and death shouldn't be a way to deal with it. The statement that is in the blog page about violence and bloodshed can never have morally good results is a statement that i disagree with (by the way Ms. DePalo you spelled bloodshed wrong in the parentheses on your blog :p). Think back to the time where America was colonized by the British and the Americans wanted independence from Britain. The only way to have independence was to fight the British since they were so reluctant to just give up and give Americans their freedom. Another reason why I disagree with the quote is look at the war we have with Iraq and Afghanistan...sometimes we just have to fight and kill in order to show other countries that they can't mess with us and we're not just going to let you terrorize our citizens and paralyze them with fear of possible terrorist attacks. Violence in the play like the death of Caesar in my opinion was actually a good decision made by the conspirators because the people of Rome can't have a snobby overly ambitious leader as Caesar to rule their empire. Caesar would just think about himself and wouldn't care what happened with the Romans.
christian.pineda@rocketmail.com
There were a lot of deaths in the play "Julius Caesar". Every death that happened was caused by a death before it. First Pompey is killed which causes Caesar to die and so on. None of these deaths had a positive result. Cinna the poet was killed just for his name which is outrageous. If the killing had stopped after Pompey died, a lot of people would have lived. Pompey's death led to another negative event.
I agree that nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed. A lot of times people think they only way they can make a difference is by killing or forcefully taking the position through some sort of violent act. Everything has consequences whether it is good or bad. Committing violent acts will only give you more in return as a consequence. In all wars, there is a lot of death. Whatever side wins usually is okay but the losing side has to recover. Even if the side that won thinks they had good intentions, the other country will be destroyed. Bloodshed and violence may sometimes seem positive to some people but it is negative to others. There will never be an act of violence or bloodshed with out someone being negatively effected.
I believe there is no way one could agree or disagree with this statement. The first sign of violence in the play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, sets off a chain of more violence. Hundreds of people end up unneccesarily dying, most of whom had nothing to do with the first brutal act. In this perspective, it seems that indeed no good can come from violence and bloodshed. However, viewed from the other side of the argument, many corrupt and evil souls were disposed of through the course of the play. Caesar who truly does have a dangerous ambition, is taken care of, Cassius who is too cunning for his own good dies, and several politicians are killed. Even Brutus who was a good soul, still murders Caesar and therefore becomes tainted. Through his death, Rome actually becomes a tiny bit purer. In this way, violence actually did produce some good.
Almost a decade ago, America suffered one of the most violent attacks in its history. On September 11, 2001, two planes struck the World Trade Center and sent the two skyscrapers tumbling to the ground in a mess of fire and steel. Hundreds died, and the entire country felt the impact of the tragedy. At first, it seemed that we would never rise out of the state of mourning after the fatal attack. However, in the days and weeks following the collapse, the whole country came together for support and there was a stronger feeling of national pride sweeping the nation than it had ever felt before. America became stronger than ever before and boldy met terrorism by the horns. If it had not been for the attacks, we would have never experienced that boost of nationalism.
Even currently on the other side of the world, violence is producing both good and bad. As Japan struggles to stabilize after the tremendous earthquake and tsunami along with the unstable nuclear plants, thousands have already died and are still dying. The world rushes to aid Japan in its time of sorrow and need, and yet, when Japan recovers, they will be stronger. There is a famous quote that states, "What doesn't kill you, only makes you stronger." People have died of course, but in the big picture, Japan is still very much alive. When it heals, they will build structures immune to tsunamis and earthquakes. They will construct nuclear plants that will not be affected by water and tremors. In this way, the bloodshed and death in Japan have actually helped it advance. Therefore, as I stated earlier, saying that no good can come from violence is not true, for as history and literature show us, there are always two sides to the coin.
Like Ashley stated, it is very difficult to picture any community or government such as Rome, without death and violence. In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, the whole killing and suicide rampage begins with the fact that Cassius did not agree with Caesar's point of view and doesn't like him. This is bound to happen in any community because not everyone can get along with or agree with everyone else. The difference between this play and most people in reality who feel that way is that Cassius actually acts on his dislike towards Caesar. He makes a scheme and starts a big situation. Unfortunately for the conspirators, nothing good happened from all the bloodshed and violence that they caused.
Like Sai said, hundreds of people's lives are lost because of Cassius' dislike towards Caesar, and most people, like Cinna the poet, had nothing to do with the enterprise. So, in the play, it is a fact that nothing good can come of violence and bloodshed. The conspirators killed themselves because they realize that what they did to Caesar is wrong. So, they don't achieve any of their goals basically. Brutus joins the conspirators because he wants to do what's right for the people, but by killing Caesar, he brings out Antony and Octavius who might even be worse than Caesar.
"Nothing good can come from violence and bloodshed." This quote is both true and false at the same time in reality. As we have heard in the news recently, there have been many outbursts and rebellions agaist governments in the Middle East, specifically in Libya. The people of Libya are tired of being governed by a horrible dictator who has been ruling over them for a few decades now. Unless the world becomes like the world of HArrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut, where the government is controlling our every thought and action, people will always have an opinion. Opinions are what essentially lead to the decision to carry out a rebellious act which leads to bloodshed and violence throughout a community. So, even if violence and bloodshed never leads to anything good, we as people learn how to voice our opinions in the right way.
kristie.varghese@gmail.com
Violence is a reoccurring theme in William Shakespeare's The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, as well as in our everyday reality. Everyday we hear stories of people committing suicide or being murdered. Though Rome was a powerful empire in Caesar's lifetime - one considered civilized, I cannot agree with Liz and Cesar in that every civilized nation involves itself with violence. The very definition of "civilized" includes humane, modern, and well-bred. However, violence constitutes none of this. Instead, it would be accurate to say that all nations considered to be civilized involve themselves with violence.
I believe it is possible to perceive any situation as good or bad. Therefore, both good and bad might come of violence and bloodshed. One might perceive that the death of all these politicians and heroes in Shakespeare's play was simply a horrid tragedy that brought on nothing but sadness to others and left a crippled Rome. However, one might also see it as an end to the greed and the blind fight for imminent power; one could see it as an end to the hate that strangled many characters throughout the events of the play.
I believe that the statement that "no good can come from violence and bloodshed" cannot be fully proved or disproved, for it is dependent upon the perception of each individual.
It would be wrong to say it is impossible to avoid violence. However, it would be ignorant to claim that human beings are anywhere near ready to leave their violent nature behind.
Rome has been going through a very hard time during the play. Death was never really a big part in the Roman life, but now it seems to have became a significant part. It might not have been intentionally but the big idea is that it is happening to Rome. I agree with Charlotte when she says "Every death is stemmed from betrayal, greed, jealousy, fear, revenge and the lack of trust." The conspirators are the main ones that fall under these traits. Brutus is the only conspirator that is not under the traits of geed, jealousy, and revenge. He time after time said that his reasons were for the best of Rome. He stuck by this all throughout the play. While on the other hand, the other conspirators were power hungry.
None of the violence in the play has a positive effect. Death is never a good thing, simply for the fact that the death of someone may leave a person satisfied while on the other hand, it may also leave someone hurting. Violence should never be an answer to anything. But if it is turned to, it should be the ultimate last resort.
The statement that nothing good can come from violence is not entirely true. I agree with Rachel C when she says that violence is not the answer, but sometimes it may be the only way to make a change in our world. During the whole segregation era, people tried to settle the difference peacefully. This resulted in no change so sooner or later the only action was to turn to violence to have changes made in our communities.
ecanancy@hotmail.com
In this play like Kristie said, it is very hard to imagine a story like this with so much hatred to not have any deaths in it. Violence will never have a good ending and especially in this story. The fact that the story has a conspiracy automatically eliminates it from the category of “peaceful story”. With all the attacks on characters such as Cinna the poet, Caesar, and soldiers during the Battle of Philippi. These internal conflicts can only lead to more violence and destruction which is what happens to Rome. In the end, after the Battle of Philippi the Roman Republic becomes the Roman Empire. So in a way violence did play apart in the historical shaping of Rome, despite the many casualties. I agree with this statement because violence usually results in injuries if not death. There is not sense to violence but we are humans and it is our natural instinct to fight when we are mad or do not like the way things are going. It is inevitable but we can control our anger. This can help reduce the amount of violence in this world. Every war that has ever occurred always had deaths and never had a happy ending. Sure there are winners and losers, but in the end both sides are “losers”. Violence can only lead to pain and future suffering and this play depicts it with the death of Julius Caesar and many other characters throughout the story suggesting that violence does not have a happy ending.
Along with Sai i agree, this statement is very hard to make one true opinion on. In the play, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar written by William Shakespeare, deaths came one after another. It is sort of a domino like reaction of deaths when one character would die another character would die over and over again until one side finally ended up winning. Pompey's death began the entire killing spree, and from that point on many characters just got so sick of witnessing all of this death and bloodshed they just killed themselves such as Brutus and Titinius. Much like abijah said some of these death were completely and utterly ridiculous such as when the poet Cinna was killed to be thought of being someone else due to his name.
Personally I believe violence is not the way problems should be solved. Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi showed the world that non-violent acts would have even more of a positive effect than wars and violence ever would. Violence always ends up in someone or something always being hurt in the end. In war one side wins, but many people die and countries are nearly torn apart. I've witnessed people first hand everyday fighting getting nothing out of it. Yeah you physically harmed someone but what are good are you going to get out of that, ten days out of school? All in all violence is stupid and meaningless people should speak out their issues without having to throw punches and use weapons. Lives would be saved and the world would be a better place in general. To me you are more of a man if you can look someone in the eye and fix your issues with someone rather than beating them up.
In The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, countless numbers of people die for no apparent reason. Most of them who do die, take no part in the actual battle themselves. Death and/or violence can be percieved as good or bad depending on the situation. For example if someone were to kill Hitler during his regime, people would look at it as a good thing because of the genocide that he led. But another person could see it as just a simple act of violence, and to them, taking someone elses life is wrong. I believe that violence/death can be justifiable depending on the situation. For example, in the move Wanted, they lived by a code, "kill one, save a thousand." The killings that they performed were for good. And as long as one can rightfully justify or prove that what they are doing is correct, than violence can have a positive result. But if violence is done just for the purpose of it, then no, violence cannot ever produce a positive result.
Violence only leds to more violence. Once someone is killed as an act of violence someone else may want to avenge their death, by once again killing. This cycle is one that goes around and around in a cirle with no end. Take for example the killing of Caesar which then leads to Antony killing the conspirators, which leads to the death of Portia, Cassius, and even Brutus.I believe that the violence in the play does not have a good result. After the first killing, Pompey the lives and stability of Rome quickly falls down hill and continues decreasing even after the death of Caesar. I agree with Kristy's example of the rebellions currently taking place in the Middle East. The majority of these countries that are rebelling fight with similar agendas, being freedom and to put an end to brutally corrupt governments,and dictatorships. The country of Libya is known for using the most brutal forces against their own people. As a result the people of this country finally strike back with their own violence, and lead uprisings. Violence is contagious and all that can come out of it is the spreading of its sickness.
Violence plays a huge role in Julius Caesar. Many people are dying and it has a good and bad affect. In this story violence has both a positive and negative effect on Rome. First of all, it is positive because it gets rid of all the bad things like Pompey, who was a bad leader. For example, in life certain people are put to death in jail because they have caused great harm to others and in order for them to not cause harm they are put away with and killed. This is a good thing because that is one less dangerous person that we all have to be careful for every day. The violence in the story is also a bad thing because many innocent people are being killed or committing suicide. Cinna the poet is killed for no reason, just because his name is Cinna. Also the violence is bad because some people know that they are doomed and kill themselves for example; Portia, Brutus, Cassius, and Titinius.
In my opinion, I believe that violence does not have a positive result because if you think about it, if it weren't for the first crime ever committed, it would have never led on to the second and third crime and so on. If no crime was ever committed then we would be a violent free world which would be much better. We all know however that it is impossible to live in a violent free world and where ever we go there will always be violence.
I agree with the statement because as I just said, the world would be a better place with no violence. We would never be at war with other countries and every person would be friends. I agree with Dan in that every war that has ever occurred always led to deaths and never has a happy ending because of all the casualties. I believe that the only casualties should be when we are all old and ready to go. Instead however, we live in a world of dominating and power crazy people like in Julius Caesar where they all want one ruler and the organization of conspirators. Violence is a very bad thing and I hope it all ends soon!!
Grlzluvemplaya1@aim.com
I swear I tried posting at 11:58 but it wouldn't let me because my account wasn't verified or something. So that's why I posted at 12:00 :)
In some aspects nothing would be accomplished without violence. Wars are being used to decide where a country would lie. In a battle of Good and evil the winner always gets to decide whether or not the area of land would be taken or settled. In the Story of Caesar without violence Caesar wouldnt have risen to power and there would be no reason to kill him. Without violence all of the plebians would be equal to the tribunes and without violence all of the characters that died no matter the way the story would not be the same actually there would be no story. In the real world without violence we would not be a free country and violence is key in our society to survive
Post a Comment