History tells us that sometimes decisions that change the fates of entire nations are based only on one person’s emotions. In other cases, long and careful rational analysis, individual or collective, precedes the final decision-making. Regardless of the method, there is always room for mistake, miscalculation, or just a pure chance, especially when it comes to complex historical events involving numerous factors. The history of Rome is full of notable moments, yet one of the most controversial ones is associated with the death of Rome’s most prominent leader. People have been debating the justification regarding the decision to murder Caesar for centuries, and there is still no clear consensus on the issue these days. However, while the impact of that decision on the future of Rome is difficult to determine, the discussion regarding the nature of the decision process can be settled easier. Marcus Brutus’ decision to kill Caesar was driven primarily by reason.
One of the critical differences between decisions driven by reason and decisions driven by emotions is the decision-making time. Emotional decisions are primarily the quicker ones, while rational and logical decisions tend to take much longer to be made. The reason is that decisions that are detached from emotions require something else as their foundation, rational analysis, for instance. Such an analysis always takes significant time as it is necessary to consider various factors and simulate different scenarios. On the other hand, strong emotions can also serve as the foundation for decision-making, as, at the time, they may seem justified to the person experiencing them. At the same time, strong emotions are mostly short-lived due to the nature of human biology and psychology; therefore, the time window to make an emotional decision is relatively small.
It can clearly be observed that Marcus Brutus’ decision is the one that has been formulating for a long time. Brutus demonstrates the understanding of the problems associated with Caesar’s one-man rule in Act I, Scene II:
Brutus had rather be a villager
Than to repute himself a son of Rome
Under these hard conditions as this time
Is like to lay upon us. (Shakespeare 1.2.263-66)
Later, during Act II, Scene I Brutus arrives at the idea of killing Caesar as the result of his previous observations and fear for Rome’s future:
It must be by his death: and for my part,
I know no personal cause to spurn at him,
But for the general. He would be crown’d:
How that might change his nature, there’s the question. (Shakespeare 2.1.611-14)
Brutus heard about Caesar’s behavior; he saw what people thought of Caesar; he seemed to have simulated possible scenarios in his head and came to the only resolution he saw fit for the situation. Therefore, it can be observed that Brutus’ decision-making is a steady step-by-step process, not an emotional outburst. If emotions played the central role in Brutus’ decision-making, they could immediately send him forward, yet he took his time to devise a plan he presented later that night.
The second argument considers the long-term nature of Marcus Brutus’ goals – he was not concerned about himself but about the future of Rome and the principles it was built upon:
Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved
Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and
die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live
all free men? (Shakespeare 3.2.1555-58)
It is evident that Marcus Brutus was thinking about the long-term results of Caesar’s obtainment of unchecked power, as this may have had adverse consequences for the whole state. Rome was the first ancient state to transform its society and reduce the role of the institution of slavery; thus, it was critical for Brutus to appeal to the concept of freedom. Brutus believed that Caesar’s one-man rule might result in the state’s and society’s degradation. Such a thinking pattern is uncharacteristic of emotionally-driven decision-making; it is primarily associated with rational analysis and planning. The reason is that strong emotions are ignited mainly by immediate personal issues and not distant public consequences, as people are much more concerned with themselves rather than others. Moreover, strong emotions tend to cloud one’s judgment and planning abilities, which is not apparent in Brutus’ case.
On the contrary to this statement, it seems that Marcus Brutus goes against his own emotions and will, as he sincerely admits his love toward Caesar – “If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say, that Brutus’ love to Caesar was no less than his” (Shakespeare 3.2.1551-53). While love toward a person can be purely emotional, love towards abstract concepts, such as freedom or principles, is more of a cognitive choice. Therefore, while Brutus appeals to his and other people’s emotions, these statements only conceal the fact that Brutus’ choice is purely rational.
There may always be room for debate regarding the nature of Marcus Brutus’ decision-making process, but this essay presented two arguments supporting the viewpoint that reason rather than emotions drove his decision. Firstly, the difference in timing and structure between the two decision-making methods was shown – carefully planned and well-thought actions characterize the reason-driven decision-making process. Secondly, the issue of dissociation between emotions and abstract concepts and the long-term nature of Brutus’ intentions was discussed. Overall, it is apparent that while Marcus Brutus’ may have convinced himself and others that he was choosing between two emotions, the reality is that he was conducting a rational analysis of the situation. As a result of such analysis, Brutus prioritized the public good over his own and chose the more rational two options.
Work Cited
Shakespeare, William. Julius Caesar. Edited by Roma Gill, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2001.