11 avril 2008
Sociopol. Assignment 2007/2008
The implications of political system on the health service in Ireland.
The implications of political system on the health service engender both positive and negative effects which pervade to the public well-being. Among the negative effects there is suicide. Suicide is an act of killing oneself intentionally. In this essay, we use this case to argue against the involvement of the political structure on the health sector in Ireland. Suicide is always a tragedy, for the life that has ended brutally, the family and people left behind. Nowadays, particularly in Ireland suicide represents the most common cause of killing in young people. Why should conditions such as these, which are on the base of a huge mortality in national scale than cancer and road traffic accidents, not receive the same and equal effective life saving dispositions? To respond to this question, we look at, first, causes that lead people to suicide. In additional to this, we look at what should be done to deal and prevent suicide. Finally, we give suggestions and recommendations.
A lot of people including young one’s, kill themselves due to depression; loneliness; isolation; hopeless; frustration; bulling; disappointment, use of alcohol and drugs, mental illness, incurable sickness. The causes of suicide are more psychic than physical. This shows how very dangerous they are; the individual is affected inward and not outward; he/she appears physically well with no clinical signs that can orient other people to discover what is wrong. Further, most suicidal victims do not leave any words stating the reasons of their acts. This makes the issue very complex. Nevertheless, they are some signs of predilection to suicide, notably: previous attempts to suicide; mental illness; family records on suicide; change of behaviour; the suicidal victim heard about a suicide death through friends, school, church and media. It is difficult to have all information on suicide motivations, as the victim keeps everything secret prior to his death. But those outlined above are the mains causes of suicide.
A cause of suicide has to be perceived by both politicians and the public as a need to be satisfied. Unfortunately, this message is not getting across to both of them. Thus, the government is not doing enough to protect the vulnerable people to suicide tragedy. Also, the decriminalization act regarding suicide simply encourages people to take their own lives because; suicide is taken by the governance as normal fact which is not either. The suicidal victim dies in pain, and leaves family and community in a shock that will last forever. Added to this, it is argued by some that everybody has the right to choose to die, if they wish, and that nobody has the right to remove this. This precept makes the prevention of suicide very difficult but not impossible.
However, there are organizations in local and national level that are deeply involved to deal with suicide, prevent and protect people from taking their own lives. For example Samaritans which is well dedicated to help people who experience emotional troubles including suicide feelings, providing counselling and training of volunteers. In the light of what it is mentioned above, there are some measures to be taken by both the government and the public to prevent the suicide tragedy. Notably, identify and monitor the increasing rate of suicide, establish many centres for suicide around the country where counselling, care and information in relation to suicide would be provided, target those who are the most vulnerable to commit suicide including most of all, young people by limiting the use of alcohol and drugs, also those who have attempted suicide need a particular treatment to avoid recurrence, education on the recognition and treatment of depression could drastically decrease the rate in suicide. Reintroduce the criminality act against suicide, discourage those who consider death by suicide as act of heroism, reconsider the use of media on the plan of suicide prevention, enable individuals in many roles and at all levels in the community to play their part on the prevention of suicide. Provide skills and knowledge that equip individuals, families and communities to fight against suicide, grant funds to organisations around the country that target suicide. Moreover, parents should treat their children with kindness and avoid hurting them, schools should ban billings, churches should preach the message of hope, and each community should stand as one man to protect itself from suicide.
Consequently, suicide is still an issue which affects the public seriously and there is a need of new policies from the politics to tackle the suicide outbreak. Added to this, families, communities have to work together to spread information on how to fight against suicide, this will help to save many lives.
In summary, this essay has suggested that suicide epidemic in Ireland is a consequence of the inactive implications of the political system on the health service. As it is the case and despite what has been done by the governance so far, the public has to take care of itself waiting for consequent reforms on health service in general and suicide in particular. Therefore, a national debate on suicide issue is vital and more lives will be effectively preserved.
MyApplied WritingEssay( Philosophy Title) 2007/2008
Abortion is a matter of personnel conscience and should not be prohibed by the state.
In this essay, I will discuss whether or not abortion is a matter of moral virtue or state dicta. Abortion is one of the major controversial issues affecting many societies around the globe for decades. Each country has its particular policies and regulations in relation to the matter. The key issue is the termination of a human life. As the value of a human life is considerable, abortion becomes a concern for the woman who bears the unborn child; for supporters and protestors of abortion, and finally for the state whose primary role is to protect its citizens and monitor ethical attitudes in society. The implication of these three groups on the matter generates a conflict of interests and rights to defend; and makes abortion a complex issue to resolve. On top of this, one question rises right away: is there any way out to reconcile those parties involved in the conflict and save the innocent human life? To respond to this question primarily we look at the background of information concerning abortion. In addition to this, we should look at interests, rights and morality in relation to abortion. And finally, we look at what should be the state duty or position towards abortion.
In the simplest terms, abortion is the intentional and artificial termination of a pregnancy that destroys an embryo or foetus before it is capable of living outside the mother’s womb. Abortions are classified in different groups. In some instances an abortion occurs on its own and in other occasions a woman decides to end the pregnancy. She might decide to end the pregnancy for relevant or irrelevant reasons according to the public discourse. The most relevant reasons justifying why women opt for abortion are rape, incest, threat on mother’s life because of the pregnancy and defects on the developing baby or genetic deformities. In contrast, the most irrelevant reasons are unplanned pregnancy, families with too many children, difficulty of coping with a handicapped child in society, the gender of the unborn child not matching with mother’s or parents’ desire, and financial difficulties. A woman who got pregnant after being raped, unenthusiastically accepts her pregnancy because, that happened against her will and moreover, it is a traumatic act. As a result, most women offer themselves to suicide. Those who are pregnant due to incest feel troubled as well but more disgusted and humiliated to bear such pregnancy. Other women would prefer to get rid of such shame rather than keep it until birth. Also, when the baby is born, the woman will presumably face questions such as who is the baby’s father and so forth. As regards to the lives of both mother and foetus, lots of women go for abortion once her own life and that of the child are endangered as a result of the pregnancy. That state might kill her at some point in nine-month period. Added to this, an unborn child who has a defect or genetic troubles represents a serious problem for both the pregnant woman and the foetus. The foetus’ development might not reach nine months term of the pregnancy or might simply stop and die inside the woman’s womb. If things go well until birth, the child will be born as a handicapped child with the risk of being rejected by either parents or society. However, some women plump for abortion when having an unplanned pregnancy; this reason is not well sound as there are many ways for preventing unintended pregnancies. Contraception is well indicated and provides significant help on that side. Also, a woman who has too many children might select abortion for the simple reason that she will not be able to rear a new child. Family planning is the correct answer and good advice to this category of women who go for abortion for their family size. Further, if the unborn child’s gender is not as expected by the mother or both parents, some women decide to evacuate the foetus because they might not love the baby once it is born. This motivation for abortion leaves speechless because the child’s gender is not worth more than child himself. Finally, a woman might opt for abortion due to financial difficulties. Financial good management and family planning would be useful in this situation. Also, wealthy states provide financial supports to everyone, children included; this should not be a big deal leading to an abortion. Relevant or irrelevant reasons claimed by women to justify their choice for abortion are only a way of defending their own interests and rights.
The viability of the unborn baby is a centre point for thought-provoking discussions opposing several views. It is established that one view supports that the embryo and foetus are human beings and are entitled to the right to life as any other individuals.
This quote from Robert George shows that embryos or foetuses start to exist after fecundation and develop independently in utero as human beings. Therefore they have to enjoy full rights to life without any restrictions. To terminate this life is simply a killing of an innocent. However, there are two more views. One of the views states that, embryos and foetuses should not considered as human beings prior their birth, because they do not live yet. The other one, opts for a neutral position with no arguments on embryo or foetus status. These two later views mentioned above are not in favour of the embryo and foetus status, and consequently, consider abortion as purely a matter of personal conscience.
The woman has the full right to decide on the right to life for the developing baby. Her moral right on the pregnancy termination has greater influence and power rather than any other dicta. The freedom of choice given to the mother exercising her personal conscience is accompanied with consequences.
[…. In exercising a moral right I can do something cruel, or callous, or selfish, light-minded, self-righteous, stupid, inconsiderate, disloyal, dishonest, that is , act viciously] (Perry John, Bratman Michael, Martin Fisher John, Introduction to Philosophy Classical and Contemporary Readings, P 598).
This passage demonstrates how dangerous it is, when someone’s moral right is exercised.
The woman bears accountability on her choice to opt for abortion. But she does not perform the act. Abortion is carried out by doctors who at this stage have a moral obligation to respect medical ethics. The fundamental role of a physician or any other medical professional is to care and heal those who are sick and protect lives but not to kill. As abortion is called by some a crime or a killing of an innocent. A physician who performs abortion on false grounds ought to examine his decision prior completing the termination of the pregnancy. Helping a pregnant woman to satisfy her desire, despite what the moral or medical practice requires is a violation of law in the matter.
Many countries around the world hold different positions in relation to abortion. Some qualify clandestine abortion as crime or illegal. Those who are directly or indirectly involved are prosecuted for serious offences which require an imprisonment or any other sentence. However, abortion conducted for the purpose of preserving the mother’s life in case of rape, incest, risk of suicide for the mother, and embryo and foetus defects or genetic troubles are considered as lawful and there are no prosecutions about that. In countries such as France, U.K and many more, abortion in all its forms is legal. Abortion is lawful in these countries on grounds of mother’s right to life and freedom of choice. Yet, in countries such as Ireland, abortion is absolutely illegal with strict exemption on some situations. The Right to information on abortion and right to travel to have abortions in countries where abortion is lawful are not prohibited. Those who are involved are prosecuted for serious offences and sentenced to imprisonment or to life.
In light of what has been outlined in this essay, it appears to suggest that, those who do not agree that the unborn child is a human being are not disturbed by abortion. According to their point of view the woman enjoys full rights and has a clear conscience when deciding on the termination of her pregnancy because; she has to prioritize her own interests and life rather than those of the unborn child. Consequently, her decision to abort should not be taken as morally wrong. However, those who find abortion so disturbing and morally wrong describe abortion as a killing of a human being, and oppose themselves strongly to the abortion practices. Further, the defend equal right to life for the embryo and foetus as for the mother. According to the pro-life opinion, women ought to think about others options or alternatives available in centres for help in relation to pregnancy crisis rather than proceed to an abortion. Also, they should make use of contraception to prevent pregnancies and abortion.
The claim of the so-called woman’s rights and interests in relation to abortion does not help and is morally wrong. Added to this, those who hold a neutral position in regard to abortion do not contribute to solve the matter on abortion and favour the abortion practice. Yet, ethics on medical practices should be respected. Physicians or any other medical professionals who perform abortion, act against hippocrates oath, where they have promised to uphold medical standards, to observe the ethical values of their profession, and specifically to seek to preserve life.
This essay, has considered the seriousness of abortion, the right to life for the mother and the unborn child where views are so diverse on the embryo’s and foetus’s status; also the consequences of the exercise of one’s moral right, the respect of ethical standards by medical practitioners and the position of different states on abortion. Consequently, this essay suggests that abortion is not a matter of personal conscience and suggests that, it should be prohibited by the state because, the faculty of discerning what is good and what is bad is not straightforward to every individual and institution. The prohibition of abortion by the state is the only way to resolve the conflict of interests and rights created by pro-abortionists on one side and anti-abortionists on the other side and will help to save innocent lives .
Bibliography
1. Corradine Antonella, On the Normativity of Human Nature: some Epistemological Remarks: Journal of Medicine and Philosophy vol. 28 no. 2pp 239-254, 2003
2. Charleton, Peter. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. Dublin: Butterworts, 1992
3. F.Chadwick Ruth, Ethics, Reproduction and Genetic Control, New York, Routledge, 1994.
4. Perry John, Bratman Michael, Martin Fisher John, Introduction to Philosophy Classical and Contemporary Readings, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
5. Robert P. George, Law and Moral Purpose: Journal of Religion and Public life, January 2008.
“What is centrally and decisively true about human embryos and foetuses is that they are living individuals of the species Homo-sapiens, members of human family at
early stages of their natural development“(Robert P. George, Law and Moral Purpose, p23).10 avril 2008
MyLegal Studies Essay2007/2008
The Irish Constitution is the source of law within the island of Ireland. Its substance represents Irish values, tradition, and identity and therefore, protects its citizens. In the same perspective, the Constitution provides a judicial review, a mechanism to keep the law efficient. Article 26, is one of the ways to direct the issue of constitutional validity of legislation to the Supreme Court. It empowers the President to test for the constitutionality of any bill or its provisions where there is a presumption of unconstitutionality. To evaluate this, I need to consider the procedure of Art 26; its advantages and disadvantages and how it has been used since than.
Main Body
Any bills, other than those related to money or Constitution amendments can be passed into by the signature of the President. However, if the President fails to sign it she/he can refer its constitutionality to the Supreme Court after consultation with the Council of state. This process has to be taken within seven days after the Taoiseach’s deposit of the proposed law to the President for signature. The Council of state is made up of 7 members. Those members have to be either a former president, Taoiseach, Tánaiste or a former Attorney General and are appointed by the President. They are members of the Council of state due to their experience for running the state and they are not representative. Their advice can be accepted or not by the President, but she ought to consult them as required by the procedure under Constitution. The Supreme Court is composed of 5 members who all are judges. They sit, examine the content of the refereed Bill or its part and hear all arguments made by the Attorney General or his representative and by counsel appointed by the court. Their decision has to be taken regarding the President’s request within sixty days after the date of reference. The Supreme Court decision might be either by an affirmative or by a negative. When the Supreme Court asserts the President’s request in relation to the constitutionality of the Bill or its provisions, she/her shall translate it into a law and make it public as soon as possible. If, the Supreme Court responds otherwise, this is to say by a no, the President shall not sign the bill. The Bill stands and falls as one document. Also, once this decision is made by the Supreme Court it cannot be challenged again in the court straight away.
It is vital to note here that, Judges of the Supreme Court who have examined the bill in the reference or its provisions and came to a decision through their majority, are people with huge experience in legislative matters and of high moral standing. They ought not to betray their nation or alter the constitutional substance for political interests, views or any other purposes. Albeit, some can argue on an opposite view as it is in this reference:
"[….The word "decision" could be as a shorthand method of referring to the conclusive impact of Article 26 proceedings on the constitutionality of the provision placed in question in the reference. Or it could be taken as importing rule-making authority to the judges of the Supreme Court in the course of responding to a reference. Given emphasis placed at several points in the Constitution on the conclusive effect of a reference, the former explanation seems the more plausible]".
In the light of this quote, the statement made by the Judges of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis the constitutionality of the refereed Bill or its provisions should not be called a decision, because it does not have the same meaning. It also suggests that Judges are susceptible to receive injunctions during the bill examination and modify the outcome.
Article 26 has its advantages and drawbacks. Advantages of Art 26 under constitution are so enormous. The procedure, serves as a valuable democratic safeguard towards the Constitution; prevents an unconstitutional law being in force; prevents consequences of having passed a bills into laws which are repugnant to the Constitution or to any provision of that; legitimates the mechanism; is flexible; makes no obligation to refer the presumption of constitutionality as Orieachtas makes always good laws and a law can be revoked by Orieachtas. Moreover, Clarity and certainty are the main ones. However, the disadvantages of Art 26 are as follows; only the President has the power reference not any other officials participating in the legislative matters as it is some countries such as France and Germany; lack of basic structure; delay in legislative process; legislative process strictly limited; the decision of Supreme Court arrives in abstracta; one judgment-rule, where one opinion has to be considerate for all the court; the minority’s court opinion is unheard ; and finally unchallengeability of Supreme Court decision.
Obviously, the Constitution is an intangible document, and, moreover, the existence of Art 26 under the Constitution and its use play a foremost role. In fact, the following references demonstrate that:
"The procedure is used infrequently. In the past fifty-five years, during which over 1,900 Bills were enacted, it has been used ten times. Five of those referrals occurred in the past fourteen years. This indicates a trend of increasing, though still rare, use of the procedure"
Also, "Each of the ten Bills referred to date related to important issues. If Article 26 had not existed, the resulting to uncertainly as to the constitutionality of the Bills could have caused serious difficulties such, for example, as electoral procedures being invalidated, adoptions lacking permanence, property rights being invaded" .
Conclusion
In Summary, the judicial review of laws under the Constitution and the abolition of the 26 Article under the Irish Constitution as a proposal in this essay have shown that both has benefits and prejudices to the law makers institutions of this State and its citizens. In one hand, the judicial review serves as a useful mechanism to probe any unconstitutional Bills on the President’s power reference before putting her signature and translating it into a law, in order to preserve its constitutionality. In the other hand, and despite its disadvantages, article 26 represents a rigid safe-guard to the Constitution. Its use has avoided serious consequences that should happen in the aftermath of translating a bill into a law which is repugnant to the Constitution. Its abolition would create a situation where the monopoly of law making will belong only to the Orieachtas and its two chambers. Therefore, bills and provisions that infringe the Constitution would be translated into laws without examination and fundamental fairness even though there are always possibilities to be challenged in the future.
Bibliography
1. J.M Kelly: The Irish Constitution, 3rd Edition, University College, Dublin 4, 1980.
2. Michael Forde: Constitutional Law of Ireland, the Mercier Press, Cork and Dublin, 1987.
3. Report of the Constitutional, Review Group 1996, Government public, Dublin, 1996.
The Irish Jurist: Reference of Bills to the Supreme Court p.337)
Constitutionality of Bills and Laws: Report of the Constitutional Review Group , pages 74-75
Constitutionality of Bills and Laws: Report of the Constitutional Review Group , page 75
Who is the “ tragic Hero” in the Sophocles Antigone- play, Antigone or Creon?
NAME: Jean-Samuel Bonsenge-Bokanga
COURSE: Classical Civilisation/Access Course For Matures Students 2007/2008
ASSIGNMENT TITLE: Who is the “ tragic Hero” in the Sophocles Antigone- play, Antigone or Creon?
LECTURER: Mary Cairns.
Introduction
Antigone is a Greek tragedy portrayed by Sophocles in 5th B.C. Throughout the play, two main characters arise and antagonize each other . As a result, they create a conflict that leads to tragic human sacrifices. One character, represented by Antigone defends the burial right of a Thebes citizen who’s her brother. The other character represented by Creon refuses to give full burial right to an Thebes national due to the law established in the state in relation to the matter. In the intervening time, a third party appears representing on one side, by people of wisdom who assigned themselves to warn the King about the consequences of his attitude and persuade him to change his mind; in the other side, by individuals who supported him to uphold his decisiveness; albeit they changed their attitude towards Antigone at the end of the tragedy. Antigone decides to give a symbolic burial to her brother and make herself ready to share the same punishment with her brother. Creon reacts vehemently to her action and reprimands her harshly. So, who is the “ Tragic Hero” in this play of Sophocles’ Antigone- Antigone or Creon? To respond to this question, I need to consider the background of the play, different types of conflicts emerged during the play and my own point of view which focuses on critical and analytical aspects.
Antigone comes from a very dysfunctional family. Laius & Iocasta were King and Queen of Thebes. At the oracle of Delphi they were given a prophecy by the blind prophet Teiresias telling that their son Oedipus will kill his own father and marry his own mother. By hearing this oracle , they decided to go out and give the baby to the shepherd. The original shepherd handed him to another shepherd as a baby to a Corinthian. He was brought to Corinth and grown up there. Naturally, He thinks that he’s a Corinthian. By a chance, he hears about the prophecy and believes in it. He decided to go out of the city and avoid the prophecy fulfilment. This brings him back to his homeland Thebes. There he met a beggar in the street, Oedipus killed the man for self-defence. That man was his own father King Laius. Furthermore, he helped Thebes to get rid of supernatural Sphinx and cure the disease. He was then elected as a new King and marries unknowingly his mother Queen Iocasta and have four children, Polyneices, Eteocles, Antigone, and Ismene.
Antigone’s key issue is the refusal of burial to one of her brothers under Creon the king of Thebes’ ordinance. As a ruler Creon puts in practice the legislation in relation to right of burial in his kingdom. The established law states that any criminals or threateners cannot receive full burial. Creon states that, as Polyneices threatened the safety of the city of Thebes , it is, according to the law to forbid him from a full burial and honour rather than to Eteocles. As he says:
“Now, conformably, of Oedipus’ two sons I have proclaimed this edict: he who in his country’s cause fought gloriously and laid down his life, shall be entombed and graced with every rite that men can pay to those who die with honour; but for his brother, him called Polyneices, who came from exile to lay waste his land to burn the temples of his native gods, to drink his funeral honours or lament him, but leave him there unburied, to be devoured by dogs and birds, mangled most hideously. Such is my will; never shall allow the villain to win more honour than the upright; but any who show love to this our city in life and death alike shall win my praise“.
Honestly, Creon was acting according to the law and was right.
However, what appears lawful to Creon and the elders is not perceived the same to Antigone. The refusal of full burial rites to one her brothers is discriminatory and unjust. As she reports to her sister :“ Our brother’s burial. Creon has ordained honour for one, dishonour for the other. Eteocles, they say, has been entombed with every solemn rite and ceremony. To do him honour in the world below; but as for Polyneices, Creon has ordered that none shall bury him or mourn for him; he must be left to lie unwept, unburied, for hungry birds of prey to swoop and feast on his poor body. So he has decreed, our noble Creon, all the citizens: to you, to me. To me! And he is coming to make it public here, that no one may be left in ignore; nor does he hold it of left moment: he who disobeys in any detail shall be put to death by public stoning in the streets of Thebes. So it is now for you to you to show if you are worthy, or unworthy, of your birth”.
Yet, her sister does not back her up because she takes into consideration the existence of the law and authority in the city and the aftermath of acting against the will of the state; as she says:
“[… If we defy the King’s prerogative and break the law, our death will be more shameful even than their[…]Since they who rule us now are stronger far than we, in this and worse than this we must obey them. Therefore, beseeching pardon from the dead, since what I do is done on hard compulsion, I yield to those who have authority; for useless meddling has no sense at all]”.
However, in response to her sister Antigone states that the sacred laws come from heaven not on earth; therefore she ’s not bind to this latter and decide to bury her brother despite what the king has proclaimed. She is totally determined to do what she thinks is the right thing to do at any cost.
The king strengthens his resolution and gives recommendations for full respect. Those who disobey will be punished by death. Antigone works out from the king’s decree and buries her brother according to the custom requirements. This was discovered by the Guards assigned by Creon to watch Antigone‘s brother’s body, as it is reported by one of the guards:
“ Then, here it is . The body: someone has Just buried it, and gone away. He sprinkled dry dust on it, with all the sacred rites“.
After hearing the unbelievable news, Creon urged his agents to find the person who has disobeyed his ordinances and the rule of the state within his power and bring him/her to him; if not they will be put to death by hanging. As he says:
“[For, as I reverence the throne of Zeus, I tell you plainly, and confirm it with my oath: unless you find, and bring before me, the very author of this burial-rite mere death shall not suffice; you shall be hanged alive, until you have disclose the crime……]”
The guards’ lives were threatened by the King. For the sake of their own lives the Guards decided to hide themselves on a hill and waited patiently until they caught the person who committed the crime.
Face to face with Creon, Antigone does not deny anything and admits the accusations made by the guards on her account. During the cross-examination by Creon Antigone still maintain her position, she was aware of the proclamation forbidding the burial to her brother but defies Creon saying that the decree was not signed by Zeus the Head gods and goddesses in their world. To say that, she ought to respect divine law rather than men- made law. Moreover, she states that both of her brothers have equal rights for burial no matter what they did. Added to this, she points out that the god of death requires these rites and her brothers are not enemies and it is more probable that they might be reconciled in the underworld; she has to love them and not share their detestation.
In response to that, the King refuted Antigone’s view and states that as long as he is living no woman shall have power to direct him . This included Antigone’s sister who was brought in front of him. After being interrogated by Creon, Ismene confirms implicitly that she has been involved in their brother’s burial and ready to share the punishment with her sister. Antigone refused her sister proposal categorically and ready to die alone. As she says to her : “ Be comforted; you live, but I have given my life already, in service of the dead”. Her sister intervenes to the king to get her out from the punishment; remembering him that Antigone is her sister and his son’s bride. Responding to both Ismene and the chorus Creon states that death is the determined sentence against Antigone in relation to the crime she has made. Haemon his child was brought in. At this point, Creon started by lecturing him on; loyalty and obedience towards him as father. Also, about his love affaire with Antigone who is according to his point of view an evil and disobedient woman; he opposes himself against any eventual marriage to her. Further he added that Antigone has broken the law and defeated his authority. He urges Haemon to stand at his side despite their love because he has decided to kill her. Moreover, he find unpleasant to be defeated by woman, Antigone in particular; as he says: “ So we must vindicate the law; we must not be defeated by a woman. Better far be overthrown, if need be, by a man than to be called the victim of a woman”
Surprisingly, his son reacts differently from what he has just said. He mentions the true wisdom that comes from the gods. Moreover, what stands besides the public
discourse is diametrically opposed to his father’s way of viewing things; as he says:
“[…..I can listen freely, how the city mourns this girl. No other woman, so they are saying, so undeservedly has been condemned for such a glorious deed. When her own brother had been slain in the battle she would not let his body lie unburied to be devoured by dogs or birds of prey. Is not this worthy of a crown of gold? Such is the muttering that spreads everywhere.[..] Therefore let no this single thought possess you: only what you say is right, and nothing else. The man who thinks that he alone is wise, that he is wise, that is best in speech or counsel such a brought to proof is found but emptiness. There’s no disgrace, even if one is wise, in learning more, and knowing when to yield]”.
Antigone’s boy friend’s speech as regards to his father’s was positively appreciated by the elders men of Thebes known as chorus in this play. By trying to persuade his father to change his mind regarding his bride’s punishment he engages himself in a purely opposing game of questions and answers surrounding on his young age and wisdom; his girl-friend offences, a tyrannical power established by his father in opposition to the gods, his father final decision to kill Antigone.
Antigone appeals against her own case before the chorus but in vain. Nevertheless, she is satisfied to be welcomed in the underworld by Hades the lord of the dead and ruler of the nether world; and meet her parents and siblings who died previously. She does not find herself guilt of breaching any god’s law; but she ‘s convicted by the law of the city which had forbidden her brother burial.
Despite all of this, Creon is determined is his decision and sign for Antigone’s death.
Finally Teiresias was brought in to convince Creon to change his mind on Antigone’s case. As he says:
“ No man alive is free from error, but the wise and prudent man when he has fallen into evil courses does not persist, but the wise and prudent but tries to find amendment. It is the stubborn man who is the fool. Yield to the dead, forbear to strike the fallen; to slay the slain, is that a deed of valour? Your good is what I seek; and that instruction is best that comes from wisdom, and brings profit”.
Regardless , Teiresias’s prophecy foretelling Creon on the destruction of his own family and power; he did not change his attitude. Moreover, it was proposed to him by the chorus to set Antigone free but unsuccessful. As result, due to Creon’s stubbornness Haemon his son and Eurydice the Queen her wife killed themselves one at a time. Terribly shocked, Creon did not know what to do, he than face exhaustively the disaster.
This essay has shown in this play two main characters opposing each other and pervade to multidimensional conflicts. Antigone buried her brother despite Creon proclamation on his burial refusal because she would like to; avoid a curse to his brother, secure a place for rest for his brother in the underworld and meet him and the rest of her family who died before when she will pass away. Also, because the decree banning her brother from right to burial was signed Creon rather than by Zeus, stating that the nomos cannot prevail to the physis. Creon made a decree refusing Antigone’s brother right to burial and punishment to anybody who will dare to contravene to his legislation because, Polyneices is a criminal and a threatener; he attacked the city of Thebes and killed its citizens. Antigone was sentenced to death because she broke the law established for that matter. Furthermore, she is a woman and cannot fight against man, her primary role is in oikos rather than in polis; she defies a freshly established authority. Antigone did not accept the punishment sharing with her sister because Ismene did not express her support to her at the early stage of the row. That was her choice according to Antigone’s point of view. Her sister was reluctant to join her on her battle against Creon because she did not like to go against the will of the city. In addition to this, she acknowledged that they both are women and cannot rule against men; disobedience would make their death more dramatic than that of their two brothers. she was released because she did not take part in the crime. Creon accused guards of bribery prior Antigone’s arrest because he could not imagine any other motivation that would push an individual to go against the law. Creon opposed to his son persuasion to free her girl friend because; the interests of the polis must be placed before those of oikos, a ruler must be obeyed and a man must not allow a woman to dominate him. Haemon killed himself because; of his father‘s ,wrong deed , the shame brought by his decision in whole city and presumably because of his love affair with Antigone. Her mother Queen Eurydice killed herself because she was stressed and distressed regarding what was happening around the city, her family destruction, and her husband ’s behaviour. All of this was the fulfilment of Teiresias’s prophecy .
Having considered, the two main antagonists character of this play of Sophocles’- Antigone” Antigone”; the conflicts it has generated throughout the scenes and theirs grounds; the third party intervention that assigned itself a task to persuade both parties to change their attitudes in relation to the conflict; the individual sacrifices to defend a right to burial to a Thebes national; it is arguably suggested that, Antigone is the true” tragic Hero” in this play.
1. Hall Edith: Sophocles: Antigone, Oedipus the King, Electra, Oxford University Press Inc, New York, 1994.
2. Segal Erick: Oxford Readings in Greek Tragedy, Oxford Press Inc, New York, 1983.
Bibliography.
Main Body
