So tomorrow night BREAKING THE WAVES in Bobet 332 @ 7pm.
I promise you will love this film!
Okay as for the blog, do tell me in writing now how we justify Abraham over Medea. Why does she come out the villain versus the father or knight of faith? or do you think Medea a hero? or do you think Abraham a villain? Moreover, what different roles do both the intent/motive and the consequences (justification/redemption for both Abraham and Medea) of the actions have to do with how we judge their characters.
See ya soon guys!
Dr. Layne
I'm going to go ahead and say that we value Abraham over Medea primarily because we have always been taught to value Abraham as some sort of hero. Like it or not, this is still a Christian nation, and Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike all consider Abraham the father of the race. He is a good guy. Plus, eh did what the "real God" told him to, because that God told him to. The way I was taught it, as a Catholic and at non-denominational bible camps, is that he was willing to sacrifice that which was most valuable to him because, in the end, God was even more valuable. It was a sign of loyalty.
ReplyDelete(However, I would like to add that if God orders you to kill an innocent in sacrifice to him, that means that that God is not a good God, and so does not have mankind's best interests at heart, but rather wants petty praise, and so we have no obligation to serve him.)
Medea, on the other hand, did not even have orders from a god, rather, she wanted vengeance. She has already proven herself to be a bitch, and we mis-trust the Greeks anyways, at least the ancient ones.
Killing a man's children is in no way justice, and so it serves no higher good, whereas, the theory at least is that sacrificing to God serves a higher good.
Right now, this question brings to mind the article posted on here some time ago (a week? I think it was a week) about sacrificing one person vs. five and the level of personal involvement in the choice to sacrifice one or five people. We value Abraham over Medea because there was an outside force at work with him. He was carrying out God's will, whereas Medea was carrying out her own will.
ReplyDeleteNow, I know that that's a vague statement, because both Abraham and Medea have the same level of choice in the decision, but so did the person who must choose between the one and five people and the person who must physically flip the lever to choose between the one and five people. Medea's involvement is more personal than Abraham's, and therefore she shoulder's more of the blame.
In addition, Abraham's son wasn't actually killed; God was just testing him. Medea went through with the murders of her children. I don't think we'd let Abraham off as easily (though I think we'd still value him over Medea) if he'd actually gone through with the murder of Isaac.
In class today, we discussed that Medea was acting in accordance with the higher power of Justice, however, the text never seems to show this directly. In fact, the text refers to her ignoble reasons for such action multiple times.
ReplyDeleteFirst, she says "I will kill my sons....Yes, I can endure guilt, however horrible; The laughter of my enemies I will not endure" (Lines 792-797).
Later, the Chorus explains that "You, for jealousy of your marriage-bed, Will slaughter your children" (Lines 997-998).
So, in neither of these reasons for Medea's action, does the idea of justice come forth. In fact, we find that she is killing her children because of her jealousy and her fear of public embarrassment.
Now, we also discussed that the gods supported her action, just as God supported Abraham. The difference in this argument is that the Greek gods were just as flawed and immoral as man, whereas the Christian God is the epitome of all things good, pure, and holy. So, it follows suit that her actions, which are for far less noble reasons than Abraham's, would be honored by her gods, because from what I have understood of them, they are just as ignoble as she is. One could argue the only reason that the sun-chariot comes to save her at all is that the Sun god is her grandfather, which could just as well be a sign of nepotism, rather than a reward for noble actions.
However, when we examine Abraham, his actions were reinforced with a pure heart that truly willed one thing, honor and glory to God. Abraham offered his most precious gift, a blessing from God, to will himself to God alone. Abraham did not directly benefit or gain from sacrificing his son, in fact, it would have been a tragic loss to him, but he submitted tot he will of God, which was for him, the Good.
I believe that at the core, the difference is that of the internal processes of each individual. In class this idea was somewhat put down, because others argued for the fact that Medea was simply submitting herself to justice or to the god's will. I believe the idea that she was acting in accordance to true justice to be completely false, as the quotes above suggest. She suffers the loss of her children because she is jealous and proud, and only sacrifices her sons to inflict further pain on to someone else. Innocent people, like her children, do not suffer in true justice. That would be unfair. That would be unjust, even. The second thought, acting as the gods have willed, however, I cannot disprove, for in Lines 1231-1232, the Chorus states "Today we see the will of Heaven, blow after blow, Bring down on Jason justice and calamity." Here, the question is that of who the gods are, the purity of their will, and even their sense of justice. From the limited knowledge I have of the Greek gods, many of their stories include bickering, lots and lots of adultery (Zeus), and other base behaviors. Therefore, I'm not convinced that their will is truly pure, or that their idea of justice is not incredibly flawed either.
So, it is the various internal processes and ideas behind the actions of both Abraham and Medea that make the former's actions more justified and latter's horrendous, as well as the quality and validity and purity of the powers, or their idea of the Good, that wills them to act.
I feel that Abraham is the lesser evil of the two because he was willing to sacrifice his only child for God, whom he would do anything for. However, Abraham doesn’t ever kill his son because by proving to God that he would in fact kill his son for Him, God stops Abraham. In the Christian faith, Abraham is seen as a hero and the father of our people. This makes it hard to view him as evil when I have only heard about his important contribution to my faith. I despise this story because God is asking for Abraham to commit an evil act, something God, whom we see as good, should not be doing because it only shows that he Himself is evil. Medea, however is the true evil one because she actually goes through with murdering her own children in order to get back at her enemies. In a way she’s sacrificing her children for the sake of justice (according to her own rules). Either way Abraham and Medea should not be considered justified.
ReplyDeletePeople are able to justify Abraham over Medea because of the religious element of the biblical text. Those who value Abraham's actions as virtuous and courageous do so because of their faith in the existence and good nature of the God Abraham was listening to.
ReplyDeleteRemove God from the picture (and I understand that many can’t do this because of their beliefs) and look at the bare situation, the “philosophical” picture that Abraham’s actions paint. Without this undefinable and all-knowing assumed force, Abraham is resolved to kill his son for fairly selfish reasons. He does it to win himself good favor in a sense. He is willing to sacrifice Isaac so that he himself can follow directions. As Dr. Layne pointed up in class, he sees no other option. I don’t think I could call him a villain. He’s not being malicious or hateful. But I most definitely don’t see him as a hero. He hasn’t taken any heroic action, nor is he being courageous. Without the assumption of God, there isn’t the possibly courageous element of having to trust in his faith.
Medea is no hero either. Her rage in no way entitles her to take her children’s lives. I definitely don’t sympathize with her actions, but part of me sympathizes with the pain and anger that drove her to that point. It was misguided, unchecked heartbreak and shame that made her act so violently. I do believe that a lot of it had to do with the fact that she was just kind of crazy.
For me, neither of them are heros. One is not a villain in comparison to the other, either. For both, however, I see no justification of the means by the ends. Abraham is just as twisted as Medea because he definitely would have killed his son if he hadn’t been interrupted.
All this begs the question: Why is infanticide so much more abhorrent than regular murder? Just as much life is lost, but there is something peculiarly unsettling about a parent killing a child. The obvious reason would be that it goes against the laws of nature; parents are supposed to care for and protect their children and infanticide is literally the opposite of that. There seems to be something else though, a darker side to why it disturbs us so much. I think it may have something to do with selfhood and identity. A child is a product of yourself and someone else. No other factors contribute. To kill your children would be to kill part of yourself as well as part of someone else’s.
Abraham and Medea are in completely different situations, so I find it unreasonable to draw a legitimate comparison between them. First of all, Abraham is prepared to kill his child out of loyalty and honor to his God, while Medea is killing her children to achieve her own glory. Secondly, the story of Abraham is not some kind of propaganda urging people to murder their children. There is a reason Genesis does not record any emotion coming from either Abraham or Isaac at any time during the story. Abraham does not even give a verbal response to God's request; he simply acts. This is because the author is trying to establish that God is in control and plays an essential part in our lives. God would have never allowed Abraham to kill Isaac in this way, and God had to ask Abraham to do something contradictory to His law in order to establish His purpose. The purpose is to show that by allowing God to influence one's life, one will not have to worry about going in the wrong direction in life. God has our best interests at heart and wants to honor them, which is why God created us in the first place. By stopping Abraham from killing his son, God shows that he has nothing to fear. Abraham, by accepting God's authority in his life, has become a biblical hero and patriarchal figure. Medea, on the other hand, is acting out of wrath, selfishness, and pride. How difficult is it for Medea to live in Athens with her children and move on with her life without killing anyone? Acting for nothing more than revenge is not heroic in any way. It is the people like Medea who are kept in prison because they are a hazard to society. Why is forgiveness never an option?
ReplyDeleteBoth Medea and Abraham should be chastised for their actions, because neither one had a legitimate reason to kill their children. We all know why Medea is considered wrong in her doings, because revenge is not a justifiable reason to murder, but no one ever questions Abraham because God told him to do it. God gave man free will for a reason, it is, in essence, what makes us human. We are not subject to the wills of another unless we allow ourselves to be. Abraham felt like he had no choice, when he actually did.
ReplyDeleteThe Ten Commandment state "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shalt only kill if God tells you to sacrifice your son, then its okay". People view the actions of Abraham honorable, when really they should be viewed as cowardice. He did what he did because he was told to. People say that you should not question the acts of God, but as humans, with a sense of free will and reasoning, we should. God gave us these abilities for that reason exactly. If we mindlessly submit to the words of an establishment, we might as well just herd ourselves to slaughter. Abraham had a choice, he followed blindly instead of using his better judgment. God rewarded him out of pity, not out of contentment.
Medea did what she did because of her emotions. Atleast she was subject to her own will, and not that of another.
By and large, I agree with Emma's sentiments. Abraham should not be considered a hero, nor should Madea be necessarily seen as a villain. True, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son in loyalty to God, which I think should be considered noble, but what upsets me about it is that his motives where not concerned with Isaac's best interests. He was not willing to sacrifice Isaac because he thought it was best for Isaac, but because he thought it was best for himself (or you could argue that it was for God, but that's still an encroachment on Isaac's personal rights). If God had told Abraham to help Isaac with his studies, or to bake him a cake (I'm sorry, I'm having a REALLY hard time coming up with examples for some reason), or anything else that would benefit Isaac (and especially if it hurt Abraham) then I could call his actions virtuous. Along the same lines, if God asked Abraham to sacrifice something that wasn't independent of himself, then I would consider him even more virtuous. Exempli gratia, I would have preferred God to tell Abraham to cut off his own legs, which is self-sacrifice without the need to force his own loyalty to God onto anyone else. Wow, that was a lot longer than I wanted to spend on Abraham. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteNow, I mostly believe Madea to be a villain. I will explain the "mostly" shortly, but for now, I will deal with how she IS a villain. Like Emma, I can sympathize with her sense of betrayal and want for revenge/justice. I think she had all the right in the world to get back at Jason for his wrongdoing, but then - like Abraham - she had to muck it up by dragging other people's lives into it. Strangely, I don't really care about Creon or his daughter, Glauce. Maybe it's because Creon is dumb to let Madea stay and because Glauce rejects Jason's children until she sees the gifts, I don't know for sure. In any case, Madea had no right to commit their murders and especially not the murder of her children, who were complete innocents in the situation. Now for the reason I can't call Madea a 100% pure villain, and I think it warrants its own paragraph.
I find it honestly surprising that no one has yet to make note of Madea's motive other than revenge. Granted, it is an eency weency little part in the story, but I think it makes a huge difference in viewing her actions. As she is debating following through with the murder of her children, she says, "I'll not leave sons of mine to be the victims of my enemies' rage. In any case there is no escape, the thing's done now." (Lines 1060-1062) Sure, Madea wants to kill the children to hurt Jason, but it is also to ensure that those who might seek revenge against her won't get at the children. Even if she had chosen to spare the children, they would be at risk of ridicule or (much) worse for their mother's actions, and she could not bear to put them in such danger.
I see four reasons why we find Abraham's infanticide generally more acceptable.
ReplyDeleteFirst, sexism. As we touched on in our class, a man killing his child can be accepted more easily (as long as there is some other justification involved). His killing his son as God's command is almost seen as no different than killing any random person at God's command. His son is only important to him as an heir, and is replacable, and this is an acceptable attitude for him, as a male head of household who must be practical and has other concerns than patriarchal love. Medea, however, as a woman, is supposed to have nothing in her life but family, and so her killing her children seems that much more repulsive.
Second, religion. Since Abraham was acting for a God, the horror of his action seems slightly mitigated to anyone with a religious bent. This is simple; I don't really need to elaborate.
Third, tying into the second reason, is motive. Abraham's motive for infanticide comes from without, and while Michael makes a valid point for the humanists and individualists among us, he at least never comes off as insane or evil, because he didn't just wake up and say "I'll kill my son." Medea, on the other hand, came up with the idea all by herself, which to most people betrays something seriously wrong with her. We (the human race) find it fairly acceptable to be pressured by authority (if any Psychology students have heard of the Milgram experiments), but if someone conceives of evil on their own, we easily throw all the blame on them and ostracize them.
Lastly, motive. While we will never all agree on the virtue of Abraham being willing ot sacrifice Isaac for God, I think humanity in general has an easier time accepting this than revenge. The virtue of revenge will always be a gray area.
I don't think outcome has anything to do with how we judge these two characters. The strong opinions we see in our own class are an example of how those that don't admire Abraham will never and would never admire Abraham, regardless of whether or not Isaac died. We all know he would have killed Isaac. And I believe that those who hate Medea would be just as sickened by her had she been prevented from killing her children. Our opinions are set from the time we know the character's motives.
Now this may go against my religious faith but I have never really understood the story of Abraham or better yet I have never really considered Abraham a hero. Yes he was instructed by God to kill his son and I agree that he must have had true faith to actually want to do it but at the same time I wonder…did he do this because he willed it?, did he really want to act in accordance with God’s will? Or was it just because he feared the consequences if he didn’t perform the act?. I believe that Abraham was under the impression that he had no choice at all and better yet because God is so powerful maybe he thought that something worse would happen if he didn’t do what God said. In my definition of courage I discussed the importance of the presence of individual choice and to me it seems that Abraham thought he had no choice in the situation so in my opinion his actions cannot be considered courageous or heroic.
ReplyDeleteAs for Medea I also think that her actions were just as terrible. Some may argue that Medea committing infanticide to protect her children from the rage of her enemies but in the play she actually says “Why should I hurt them (her children in this case) to make their father suffer, when I shall suffer twice as much.” Page 49. This shows that her motives for killing her children were mostly to inflict pain on Jason and gain some justice for what he did (at least in her mind). While I agree that this is probably the only thing that Medea could have done to really make Jason suffer her priorities were nonetheless messed up. She didn’t care about her children, she didn’t care about the good, she didn’t even care about herself (as she admits that killing her children would hurt both her and Jason) all she cared about was gaining revenge on Jason.
In this respect I understand why Abraham is viewed as the hero mainly as was mentioned before because religion is involved, for some reason once its for faith no matter what the act is there seems to be no rational judgment again. I believe that both Medea and Abraham (although to different extents) are both not heroic. I also agree with Antonia when she says that the outcome of the act doesn’t change our perception of the two individuals. It is examining the inner will and reasoning that we formulate our opinions.
I don't justify what either Abraham nor Medea did or almost did. But I can understand why people might think what Abraham did was okay over what Medea did, because Abraham was going to kill his son in service to a higher power, while Medea killed her children just to get revenge against their father.
ReplyDeleteAlso, a difference between the two is where the idea of killing their children came from. Medea's motivation came from within, while Abraham's motivation came from without. Medea came up with the idea to kill her children on her own, which can be viewed as more evil than being ordered by God to murder your child, because what if Abraham didn't go to murder Isaac? Abraham could of been smitten on the spot.
But in my point of view, no matter the why or the situation, it's just wrong to kill your children. So I see both Abraham and Medea as abominable. Neither is more or less wrong than the other, just because of differing motivations. At the end of it all, they set out to kill their kids, and that's not right.
I believe the time period in which both stories were written affects people's perspectives on the role of men and women. In the past, women have always held an inferior position compared to men. This is very much different than today's view of men and women, who nearly equal each other in status. Thus, naturally, people in the past, when recording a story such as Abraham's, would write in a tone such that his actions may be justified, and for Medea, people would have read/written the story in such a tone that made her actions deplorable. This is sexism rearing its ugly head once again. Furthermore, Abraham's reputation for being a "patriarch" would further help "justify" his own actions, a classic example of the end justifying the means. Him being a man helps people overlook his bad intentions, and exaggerate his good intentions. Medea, though sharing a similar glory with Abraham (being Jason's first wife, and his accomplice in obtaining the golden fleece), that is not enough to save her from the scorn that people would see her with in regards to her intentions because she is a woman. The fact that she is a woman leads people to disregard the good that she's done, and exaggerate the bad.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion though, both characters are deplorable. Especially from an atheist point of view, there is nothing to justify the murder of your own offspring (if they are in all ways innocent), not even the belief that god told you so (in fact, from this atheist point of view, Abraham merely seems to me to be a crazy old person about to murder his own child, essentially the same as Medea). They are your own flesh and blood and must continue on the family line, and thus their murder is essentially your own discontinuation of your family.
Both characters are ridiculous. It seems that we as a class have come to the agreement that Medea's actions are despicable, but I am also displeased with Abraham. If he had not been stopped by an "angel" he would have killed his son, just becuase "god" told him to. This Bible story teaches us that we should not think for ourselves, but rather just mindlessly submit to some invisible entity that tells us to murder our own family. And even if god did exist, wouldn't it be infinitly sinful for Abraham to kill his son? It is amazing to me that Christianity has stood the test of time despite the plethora of hypocrisy the religion is based upon.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it comes down to the situation, and the two options. It wasn't really Abraham's idea to kill his son; God demanded it as a sacrifice from Abraham. Abraham didn't want to, but God made it clear that what he wanted. In this situation, Abraham is torn between the love for his son and the love of God. Medea's situation is quite different. It is her own idea to murder her children. She is pitting her love of her children against her desire for revenge. That is what makes her situation and decision deplorable while Abraham's situation and decision is tragic.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of "Breaking the Waves," when the Dr. said that Bessie was “good,” rather than psychotic, and insane, what he meant was that she was truly selfless. Where others, like Bessie’s mother, seem to follow the “rules” in order to appear good, to appear pious, to appear selfless, Bessie sacrifices ALL of her values for her husband. She retains not a morsel for herself. The members of Bessie’s community are, in the end, unveiled as impostors. While they profess to be good and generous and Christian, they are afraid to dirty themselves in order to do what is, in fact, generous or kind. Bessie has NO reservations. She sells her soul and her life to follow her faith. From my atheistic opinion, this is highly immoral. What Bessie lacked was self-esteem. Her selflessness is the result of self-betrayal; of offering herself as a sacrifice. Her soul did not “revere itself” as Nietzsche would have said. If the magic bells hadn’t tolled in the end to let us know everything is all right, we would’ve seen the systematic, pointless self-destruction of Bessie. So, from my bell-less perspective, Bessie wasn’t virtuous at all. She was deluded, and dangerous to herself.
ReplyDeleteFiguratively speaking, the bells are the essential difference between Medea and Abraham. Abraham had the bells. They stopped him (but even if they hadn't), and showed that everything was right. Thank God! Abraham wasn't insane! God was telling him to do it the whole time. Medea has no bells; she has no divine justification. She simply wants to wound Jason, even if she needs to destroy herself in the process. I suppose that is another essential difference: motive. Medea is selfless in order to harm Jason. This sounds contradictory, because it sounds as if she is selfishly fulfilling a desire, but it really isn’t selfish. It’s actually self-destructive. She allows the desire for revenge to take over and eat up her soul, effectively destroying her "self". Abraham is selfless in order to do what is “right” for the universe, i.e., for God.
While, I think that neither Medea nor Abraham were right in their intended infanticide, I do understand how Abraham’s situation is more justifiable. Abraham was acting in accordance with what he thought was a greater good (God’s will), but Medea acted out of a misguided sense of revenge. It is much easier to excuse a person’s religious beliefs than irrationality caused by emotions run out of control. Another reason one may justify Abraham is that he never actually committed the murder. It is also much easier to excuse someone when they don’t actually succeed in committing horrendous actions even when they intended to. Though in my mind, this is a very poor excuse. Someone who intends to kill his or her child is just as bad as the person who actually did. His or her actions should not be excused simply because of a chance occurrence. I don’t really think that Abraham can truly be excused for following God either. He sacrificed what he believed was morally right to blind faith. As someone who possesses very little faith, this has always trouble me. I guess my point is, even though I do not personally justify Abraham over Medea, I can see how someone could make a case for him.
ReplyDeleteI justify Abraham over Medea because Abraham’s act was an act of faith while Medea’s was for revenge. Abraham followed God’s will because trusted in God and believed in the good of God. Though killing his son may seem horrendous and extreme, Abraham knew that this act would be right and good because God willed it. Because of this, I do see Abraham as a hero, but I do not see Medea as a villain. Her cause is a reputable one—justice. In her quest for justice she loses a little of her sanity. She is too extreme in her justice, for killing her children was not necessary. Therefore, she cannot be deemed a hero but neither is she a villain.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both passages, no character may truly be referred to as heroic. To take an innocent life should never be the justification for anything. To take the life of an innocent family member, let alone your own offspring is quite possibly the most horrific act a human being could ever commit. To question whether Medea’s slaughter of her children is any more or less right than the attempted slaughter of Abraham’s children is a topic which should not even be discussed. There exists no righteous justification for the slaughter of innocent life, let along the lives of your own offspring. Neither religion nor revenge should involve the loss of innocent life. The only true concept learned from these readings is the delusions that both religion and revenge instill in individuals.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm sure I am somewhat biased to value Abraham over Medea because of my personal beliefs in Christianity, I'd like to point out that one of the things that makes us value Abraham more than Medea is the fact that Abraham did not want to kill his son. He was told to kill his son by God, and greatly lamented this command but accepted the necessity of it. For Medea, the idea to kill her children didnt come from some higher being. She made that decision herself.
ReplyDeleteI may be biased as a woman, but I also think there is an element of sexism that needs consideration. Because of women's maternal insticts, we view a mother killing her children as more morally reproachable than a man killing his children. Because of this, we tend to accept Abraham's near killing of his son more than we accept Medea slaughtering her own flesh and blood.
I can't speak for everyone else, but the reason why I respect Abraham much more than I respect Medea is because Abraham was willing to give up the one thing in the world that he loved most because of his love for God and because of his trust in God. We have to remember that having a child was NOT easy for Abraham. He and his wife waited for many many years before finally having a chiild in old age. Abraham, however, was willing to give up his son for God. Whether you believe in God or not, you have to admit that that is extreme commitment. Medea, on the other hand, was simply a mother murdering her children in cold blood for the sake of revenge.
In my opionon both Medea and Abraham are reprehensible. Abraham is the archtypical example of blind faith leading to evil. He is praised as a hero because he is obidient to God in all things, and is even willing to kill his own son if God commands. I disagree that this is praiseworthy. It is the same obidience that jihadists show to God, or that a skitzopherenic shows to the voices in his head when he follows their instruction to kill someone.
ReplyDeleteWould anyone have praised Abraham if he had gone through with the sacrifice as he intended to. I think not. Instead he would be reviled as a murderer, a monster and probably insane.
Medea actions are also morally reprehensible. They are different in that they reflect her own will, rathre than the will of whom she percieves as God, but similarily reprehensible. One action could be judged as morally supieror basaed on wether one it is better to act selfishly or selfessly.
When I first read the story, I would have quickly answere that Abraham was more morally acceptable. Now I would only decisively and pubilcly judge both their actions dispacable neither of them a hero.
We justify Abraham over Medea for one simple reason, there is at least a potential for good in what Abraham does. To understand this we need the context of this story. He already knew that God could do the impossible, his barren wife Sarah had borne him his son Isaac. For a man in that historical time, there was no greater thing than gaining a son. After that gesture Abraham would of course be willing to trust that something good would come from the situation, and in the end it did. Medea is the opposite. She has no reason to believe that any good will come from killing her children. She only acts out of a selfish revenge, which is the most perverse form of justice if it is justice at all.
ReplyDeletePut into layman's terms: Medea was a psycho bitch bent on revenge, while Abraham was compelled by God to do such a thing. Bitchiness is conventionally worse than a faith based action.
ReplyDeleteJust for good measure, lets consider the contrary.
Medea wouldn't have simply killed her kids for no good reason – possibly out of maternal instinct wanting to save her kids from death... by killing them earlier. Killing in love? I know – the concept hasn't ever made much sense to me either, but it does show up a lot in literature regardless of whether it is commonly understood or not. This could evoke awkward sympathy with Medea though, in regards that she wants to protect her kids in a morbid way.
Abraham, still, I don't think is at fault. He didn't actually go through with killing his kid (disregard divine intervention.) God was the one that told him to go through with - he has the power to start or stop whatever he wants.
I don't think that gender has anything to do with this. Be it male or female, we're humans regardless. Sex shouldn't have any real determination in the determination of whether an act is “right” or not.
There is first a very tangible distinction to be made: Medea killed her offspring, Abraham did not kill his. Nuff said.
ReplyDeleteBut just in case one chooses to ignore this glaringly obvious fact, here is a more philosophical argument:
In order to argue the validity of Abraham's intent against the invalidity of Medea's, a scale of value must be established. For the sake of this blog, I sill make the scale one of virtue. I also believe that there is an infinite and irreplaceable value of each individual human's life, and that the only situation in which a person could validly take another human's life (or his own) would be when that decision is the lesser of two evil choices and the intent is fully towards making the good decision.
Abraham acts out of love and devotion. He is not crazed, he is not rash, and he trusts God as the source of all that is good. In the Bible, God had already mandated that human sacrifice was bad; it was a pagan ritual to be shunned by the chosen people. Therefore, since Abraham willed to follow God's will, and God never willed for Abraham to kill Isaac, Abraham never willed to kill Isaac. In fact, the way that story worked, if Abraham had any intent other than to please God in killing Isaac, he probably could have killed him very easily; the only thing that stopped him was his devotion to God and goodness.
Medea acted in the exactly opposite manner than Abraham. She acted rashly and out of vengeance. Though the gods praised her, the gods are unjust in themselves, and the very nature of the gods allowed them to disagree and have mutually exclusive opinions of what was just. She has no basis which justifies killing her kids, and she treats them as objects, implements of emotional chaos towards another party. Her murder is full of hate and treachery, and there is no virtue in that.
I believe that Medea is seen as a villain for multiple reasons. For one, she completed the act of murdering her children, whereas Abraham was stopped. Also, she was a mother, and mothers are supposed to be very protective of their own children, and murdering them does not fit the common protocol. The thought of one's own mother committing that crime creates uneasiness, and causes the reader to think that children might never be safe if they can't trust their mother. It might almost be expected for a man to be violent in nature, so Abraham's actions were not that out of the ordinary compared to Medea's. In addition, Abraham's main motive was faith, and Medea's main motive was revenge. Faith can be more easily associated with heroics than revenge can.
ReplyDeleteSetting aside the acts themselves, I think that the reason each character acted the way they did is crucial in determining whether either are really heroes or villains. I don't think Medea should be considered a villain; I think the people that put her in her terrible situation are the actual villains. It is because of Creon and Jason that she was to be banished; they created a monster, so to speak. She was driven into a corner, so her actions cannot be compared to Abraham's on a level field. Abraham, on the other hand, is a blind follower of God. To me, Abraham is an extremely dangerous individual because of this. He has no choice in what he does; he is literally a slave to God's will. If God had told him to jump off of a building, he would have done so. It is because of his lack of personal willpower that I don't believe him to be a true hero.
There are several reasons why Medea is seen as a villain and Abraham is seen as knight of faith. People find it more acceptable for a man to kill his children than a woman to kill her because of the arcane roles that ours ancestors passed on to future generations. Since men are the ones fighting on the battlefield, killing a child comes more naturally than to a woman who is supposed to nurture them. People are also more willing to accept God telling Abraham to kill Isaac than Medea wanting to Jason by killing her two children. Lastly, people are more willing to accept divine intervention stopping a murder than the murders actually happening. These reasons make Abraham seem to be a hero and Medea a villain.
ReplyDeleteHowever, both Abraham’s and Medea’s action were blameworthy. Medea wanted to kill her kids just for the sake at getting back at her husband. She acted rashly and knew that there was no risk involved in doing so because she stopped having feelings toward the children. Though she seems to show that killing her children will hurt her as much as Jason, Medea ultimately decides to kill her children in the name of justice and revenge. These reasons for killing her children are invalid since the punishment Jason for cheating on Medea is not just. Though she does get revenge, further scrutiny of Medea’s actions show that her action were done more out of jealousy and selfishness more than anything else. Medea was only concerned about her ability to make the situation right in her perspective and not the future of her children or the feeling of Jason. Medea was upset that Jason had put another woman over her and since she thought she had lost the control in the relationship, the murders were her way to regain the control. Abraham does not want to kill to Isaac, yet feels that since God is telling him to do so, then he must. He also acted rashly because he never questions God’s authority and even though it may be custom to follow what God says, it is not enough justification for going to potentially kill his own child. Abraham should have thought about several things before going on the journey up the mountain including if he thought killing his child actual were for the greater good. He should have thought about why it was that his son needed to be sacrificed. Could his son be some evil that could do harm to the greater good? Could Abraham have done some wrong that can only be atoned if he sacrifices his son? Alternatively, perhaps, can God still be considered a good and all-loving God even though He has put this burden on Abraham? It is dangerous to not question one’s faith because it can sometimes lead to evil act such as the killing of child. It is Abraham’s love of God that eventually leads him to go up the mountain and kill his son. However, one could argue that if he had stayed Abraham would be showing his love of God since Abraham would be following the way of life that is seen as good. Abraham feels as though there is no choice and therefore he is not acting as a hero but as a follower to God’s will much like Prometheus followed his visions at one time. Medea and Abraham are neither a hero nor a villain. They are just two people who decide to commit the same disgusting act but will always be seen differently because of the different circumstances created by different people giving them different motives to commit the act.
First off, killing your own children is horrible, regardless of whether it is done in the name of God or revenge. I do sympathize with Abraham a little more than i do with Medea, but I condemn both regardless. Abraham was directly ordered by God to kill his son, and believes that he has no other choice. Thus, he acts out of love for God and because he did not see any other alternatives. In other words, he was forced to (almost) sacrifice his son. In contrast, Medea does not need to sacrifice her children, but rather wants to. One can point to her hesitation as a sign that she didn't actually want them to die, but she was the one who hatched the plan, in which their deaths amplified Jason's sorrow. I can't sympathize with Medea whatsoever. I realize that Jason's move was despicable, but murdering his entire family is simply not a valid response to divorce (imagine if that happened in every day life!).
ReplyDeleteAs previously noted, Abraham cannot be forgiven entirely though. While I realize the power of God, I don't think that sacrificing one's son is acceptable in showing affection to anyone or anything. However, his circumstances do mitigate my contempt for his intention.
It was brought up in class that Abraham was better because he didn't actually kill his son. This is baloney. He had every intent of killing his child until God intervened; the intent and attempt is just atrocious as actually killing his child(ren, like Medea did), at least in ethics which is more prevalent to the topic than law.
Good thing I checked. My response wasn't saved to the blog... I do not know why, but yes, I did this assignment on time. Sorry about that :/
ReplyDeleteMedea comes out the villain because her children ACTUALLY died from the ordeal while Isaac was saved. This is because of our morality where infanticide is wrong as well. Abraham claimed to be doing this for God, but Medea was doing this out of revenge. To our eyes, we see his quest for religion in a more positive manner than Medea's revenge. In addition, revenge can rarely, if never, be seen as positive. The time periods of each situation as well as the audience's time period sways the logos of right and wrong.