Throughout history, questions have arisen about when it is right to kill someone or not. There are usually two sides to this controversy: it is never right to kill someone, or it is better to kill one person and save thousands of lives than to risk the death of thousands of people. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, it can be argued that Caesar truly did deserve to die for various reasons. In Julius Caesar, Caesar deserved his fate because he had many physical weaknesses that held him back, he was too power-hungry and egotistical, and he would have ultimately hurt Rome more than helped it. In society, people are told not to bring each other down for their weaknesses, but to turn someone’s weakness into their greatest asset. However, Caesar’s
…show more content…
He had already shown that he didn’t have Rome’s best interest at heart when he murdered Pompey and became the sole ruler of Rome (at that time, Rome was ruled by two main people at once, with more officials below them in a hierarchy). Brutus says, “‘And therefore, think him as a serpent’s egg-with, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous-and kill him in the shell,’” (II.i.32-34). This comment by Brutus shows that he believes Caesar will ultimately grow into a tremendous beast who will bring turmoil to Rome. He explains that the only way to prevent the damage to Rome is by killing Caesar before he gets too much power. Caesar was already beginning to show that power was getting to head, and if he was given absolute power, that feeling of self-perfection would only grow. That feeling would lead to Caesar make bad decisions that would most likely have negatively impacted Rome. In conclusion, Julius Caesar truly deserved his death. He had many physical weaknesses that would have greatly held him back as a ruler. In addition, he had a severe mental flaw of being too egotistical, and doing anything to improve his image, even it was not the best for everyone involved. This impulsive, image-improving decisions would have ultimately caused Rome more hardships than benefits. The audience can only wonder what state Rome would be in if Caesar had
He had already shown that he didn’t have Rome’s best interest at heart when he murdered Pompey and became the sole ruler of Rome (at that time, Rome was ruled by two main people at once, with more officials below them in a hierarchy). Brutus says, “‘And therefore, think him as a serpent’s egg-with, hatched, would as his kind grow mischievous-and kill him in the shell,’” (II.i.32-34). This comment by Brutus shows that he believes Caesar will ultimately grow into a tremendous beast who will bring turmoil to Rome. He explains that the only way to prevent the damage to Rome is by killing Caesar before he gets too much power. Caesar was already beginning to show that power was getting to head, and if he was given absolute power, that feeling of self-perfection would only grow. That feeling would lead to Caesar make bad decisions that would most likely have negatively impacted Rome. In conclusion, Julius Caesar truly deserved his death. He had many physical weaknesses that would have greatly held him back as a ruler. In addition, he had a severe mental flaw of being too egotistical, and doing anything to improve his image, even it was not the best for everyone involved. This impulsive, image-improving decisions would have ultimately caused Rome more hardships than benefits. The audience can only wonder what state Rome would be in if Caesar had