A reoccurring theme in the plays we read, Agamemnon and the Libation bearers, was seeking revenge. Whether for reasons just or not, whenever a party felt like they’d been injured, or had endured wrong, they chose revenge as their means to seek redress (as long as it was in their capacity to do so). Avenging the wrong inflicted upon them, seemed to make Clytemnestra and Orestes feel like the unjust actions committed by others had been punished and that they had somehow restored justice. Although this initially seemed to me like the wrong attitude to have, since revenge has negative connotations associated with it, I soon felt like it is in fact quite an accepted concept of justice. As Clytemnestra felt that her daughter had been murdered unjustly, she chose to kill Agamemnon. Similarly, when someone inflicts any wrong on another person now, even if that culprit may not be any harm to society anymore, he/she is still made to suffer for the wrong they did. By wanting to ensure that the culprit is convicted, the person harmed is also seeking revenge and reprisal.
On pondering further about this, the only difference I could fine is that Clytemnestra’s actions were carried out out of hatred and spite, while those of a judge are done by neutral and objective assessment. This difference makes the ruling of a judge the proper way to seek justice, while Clytemnestra’s actions were regarded as seeking vengeance, even though the judge is also gratifying the innocent person by revenging the wrong inflicted upon them. Revenge is seen as egoistic thing to do, but, the fact that we believe that the guilty should be punished makes revenge seem equal to the perception of fairness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do agree and see the similarities as well as the differences you pointed out in the idea of revenge in Clytemnestra’s and Orestes actions and today’s justice system. Where I differ is notion of the “proper” way to seek justice. In Agamemnon’s society, he was the ruler therefore his actions should go unquestioned and if he chooses to kill her daughter then it is just, where as to murder the king, is illegal and for his son to seek revenge in just.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that through history there have been many laws that have been unjust, however it is often because of the individuals that go against these laws that help bring about change. For example, one of the best cases was the civil rights movement. These rules and laws were established in an attempt to repress people that were not white. However, it was because of those individuals that went against the laws that helped bring about the change and equality that we now have today.
ReplyDeleteI would say that revenge does play a role in our legal system. Trials should be conducted in an impartial manner, but one of the reasons trials are held in the first place are to gratify a victim's family and friends. Often times, their emotional, heart wrenching testimony can make a significant difference in a trial. Additionally, the victim's family is often present when a criminal is put to death.
ReplyDelete