Madison Verschleiser
English
A Practical Sin is a Favorable Sin
When presented with the practical means and the reasons to fulfill his ambition, Macbeth discards the moral struggle in order to pursue what he perceives to be practical. The soliloquy begins with an overarching statement: “If the assassination / could trammel up the consequences and catch with surcease, success (then Macbeth would kill Duncan),” (1. 7. 3-4). Here Macbeth suggests that whether or not he will kill Duncan relies on whether or not what is accomplished is worth the consequences, this is a very practical view of the situation. Despite this initial tendency towards practicality, Macbeth then goes on to discuss the moral reasoning behind why he shouldn't kill Duncan. …show more content…
7. 25). In modern English this sentence would read, “There is no reason for me to kill Duncan besides my ambition.” The fact that Macbeth comes to this conclusion demonstrates that it is completely clear to Macbeth that there are no moral grounds for killing Duncan; had there been moral grounds for killing Duncan, Shakespeare would not have written that ambition was the “only” reason to kill Duncan. Because of the immorality of the action, the audience learns that Macbeth comes to the conclusion that he cannot kill Duncan, but Lady Macbeth convinces Macbeth otherwise, she does this by highlighting the practicality of killing the king. At first Lady Macbeth prods Macbeth stating, “Wouldst thou have that / Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life.” (1. 7. 41-42). Here Lady Macbeth reemphasizes that killing the king would result in Macbeth being appointment king. This serves as extremely strong practical reasoning for murdering Duncan. To add on to the previously existing practical reasons, Lady Macbeth says to Macbeth, “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.”(1. 7. 49-51) This places a new practical motivation for Macbeth; in
English
A Practical Sin is a Favorable Sin
When presented with the practical means and the reasons to fulfill his ambition, Macbeth discards the moral struggle in order to pursue what he perceives to be practical. The soliloquy begins with an overarching statement: “If the assassination / could trammel up the consequences and catch with surcease, success (then Macbeth would kill Duncan),” (1. 7. 3-4). Here Macbeth suggests that whether or not he will kill Duncan relies on whether or not what is accomplished is worth the consequences, this is a very practical view of the situation. Despite this initial tendency towards practicality, Macbeth then goes on to discuss the moral reasoning behind why he shouldn't kill Duncan. …show more content…
7. 25). In modern English this sentence would read, “There is no reason for me to kill Duncan besides my ambition.” The fact that Macbeth comes to this conclusion demonstrates that it is completely clear to Macbeth that there are no moral grounds for killing Duncan; had there been moral grounds for killing Duncan, Shakespeare would not have written that ambition was the “only” reason to kill Duncan. Because of the immorality of the action, the audience learns that Macbeth comes to the conclusion that he cannot kill Duncan, but Lady Macbeth convinces Macbeth otherwise, she does this by highlighting the practicality of killing the king. At first Lady Macbeth prods Macbeth stating, “Wouldst thou have that / Which thou esteem’st the ornament of life.” (1. 7. 41-42). Here Lady Macbeth reemphasizes that killing the king would result in Macbeth being appointment king. This serves as extremely strong practical reasoning for murdering Duncan. To add on to the previously existing practical reasons, Lady Macbeth says to Macbeth, “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.”(1. 7. 49-51) This places a new practical motivation for Macbeth; in