(Keith Donnelly BLOG 2)
Clytaemestra's murder of Agamemnon, in some respect, can be viewed as a justifiable action. Consider, for a moment, the role of women in Ancient Greece: Women as citizens of society had very little, if any, prominence and social standing. With that being said, what is Clytaemestra to do with Agamemnon, her husband and king, murdering their daughter? Perhaps the only way she can seek redress is to become a vigilante and take justice into her owns hands. After all, her voice, her status as a woman, will most likely not be heard or taken seriously among the general public. However, is killing her husband the only viable option in this situation? Moreover, does one form of violence (namely, Clytaemestra killing Agamemnon) make up for another form of violence (namely, Agamemnon killing their daughter)?—I think not, though in America the punishment of death is permissible if the situation allows—this is decided by a jury, not a single individual however (e.g. Clytaemestra)
First consider to what extent the presence of injustice in the legal system permits one to take justice into their own hands. In Argos a woman such as Clytaemestra ultimately has very little say regarding the death of her daughter. In fact, even if she was a man, her voice again would not matter—who would challenge the King and successfully win? Now with this being the situation, I think a certain amount of vigilantism is acceptable, though I still do not believe killing would be the right type of justice to take. My reasoning for this view (my belief that Clytaemestra does have a right to take some form of justice) is that her daughter’s inalienable rights as a human being (if you believe inalienable rights exist) were infringed upon. It is my belief that no one deserves to die in the manner of Agamemnon’s daughter without some type of significant reason. Here, though, presents another can of worms: Was Agamemnon’s reason for killing his daughter justified? Recall Agamemnon believed by killing his daughter he was promised a safe trip across sea by the Gods. Is this an acceptable reason to kill her though? Again, this presents much controversy.
I think at the end of the day there is no right answer in this case. There are viable reasons why Agamemnon killed his daughter and there are viable reasons why Clytaemestra killed Agamemnon. I still think even if a perfect answer does not exist in this situation, even if everyone cannot agree on who is right and who is wrong, each individual studying this case can gain insight to who they are and where their morals and values lie, each person can take something from this case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that a poor legal system in Argos led to Clytaemestra's murdering of Agamemnon. I believe Clytaemestra would have sought to kill her husband regardless of consequences. And the fact that Clytaemestra is a woman is also kind of irrevelant. Aegisthus helped kill Agamemnon, too, and he's not a woman (though doesn't Orestes say he's like a woman... something like that?). I think that being a Greek woman makes Clytaemestra LESS likely to go kill Agamemnon. The woman is cunning and smart. The same cannot be said for most Greek women (like her daughter, Electra, who doesn't know who her brother is when he's in front of her face.)
ReplyDeleteI agree. The legal system had nothing to do with the murder. Just because Clytaemestra is a woman doesn't mean that she would not follow the law the way it was interpreted back then; blood for blood. She did what anyone else would have probably done, man or woman, if they had been in her same situation.
ReplyDeleteClytaemestra also didn't commit the murder herself. She was aided by a man and without him, who knows if she would have been able to pull it off?
While you say that a certain level of vigilantism is acceptable for a women who has been faced with an injustice, I have to question that statement. When you say that she is regarded a certain amount of vigilantism you say that she should not have murdered Agememnon. If someone has committed murder and you have a stake in that individual who was murdered, what then is the appropriate response. I think that if you condone vigilanteism, you cannot restrict the amount of justice that one individual can take on another. One wrong of a certain degree should be punishable with the same wrong by a vigilante. I feel that if you condone vigilantism you condone the mantra an "eye for an eye"
ReplyDeleteWow there are a number of comments to address here, so I suppose I should make a comment to Brad's comment first.
ReplyDeleteYou say if I condone vigilantism then it necessarily follows I condone an "eye for an eye." I do not think this is necessarily true. In fact,I hope it isn't true!
Is not possible, that someone can take the law into their own hands without committing the same wrong that was committed upon them? For example, in the play, could not have Clytaemestra done something other than kill Agamemmnon to seek revenge?--Perhaps she could have foiled his kingship in some manner. Perhaps she could have exposed her affair and angered Agamemmnon (if he would be angry about this). Killing is not the only viable way to seek revenge (though it may "feel" the most justified). I think the point is, there our others ways then violence or even coercive means to "take the law into your own hands."
Carly & Cara:
ReplyDeleteI disagree: I still believe the legal system played a significant role in the reason why Clytaemestra killed Agamemmnon. Do mothers in American society -- a democratic society in which individuals are tried in front a court of law-- whose sons/daughters are murdered go about actually killing the murder? Perhaps if the mother is crazy -- and maybe Clytaemestra is. But the reason mothers whose children are murdered do not personally kill the murder is because we have a legal system to distribute justice. In Argos, this certainly was not the case.