Introduction
The perception of right and wrong and the impact of time on an individual’s actions are challenging concepts that characterize when reviewing the intricacies of justice. Understanding the context with regard to the individual’s intentions seldom helps acquit an individual from wrongdoing in scenarios where negative outcomes are experienced. The challenge individuals are faced with is whether a person’s intentions in the past, regardless of the consequences, should be enough to vilify specific actions. In addition, differentiating between moral judgments and political judgments with regard to the administration of justice is often challenging. People often have to make difficult decisions when faced with impossible odds as old ideas clash with contemporary views. The administration of sound judgment is dependent on a jury’s ability to conceptualize an individual’s intentions, the conception of the future, and the impossibilities that characterized the actor’s context regardless of the outcome. The thesis emphasizes the importance of considering an individual’s context as they deal with impossible situations. It highlights how an individual’s vision impacts the relevance of the choices they make. The essay will focus on Demosthenes’ speech, The Liberation Bearers, and the tales of the Eumenides to explicate the thesis.
“On the Crown” by Demosthenes
“On the Crown” is a speech by Demosthenes in which he advocates the acquittal of Ctesiphon for overseeing an illegal decree. The speech is forensic because while it supports the defendant’s case, it is, in reality, a deliberative battle between Aeschines and Demosthenes. The speech provokes thoughts of politics and the impact of confrontation. Demosthenes highlights the fact that even though the time to save Athenian freedom is gone, there exists an opportunity for those willing to learn to grasp the fundamentals of freedom. He emphasizes the fact that his entire being and existence are being judged during the trial (Demosthenes 36). Contemporary moral philosophy proposes that a distinction must be made between the morality of intentions and virtue ethics. However, Demosthenes illustrates that political judgment is the evaluation of an individual based on his actions.
The jury was tasked with determining whether Demosthenes’ acts in defense of Athenian freedom were justified. The concept of time plays a pivotal role in understanding the jury’s decisions. First, an individual’s actions are assessed on the basis of the intentions that drove specific behaviors. In essence, a person’s intentions are considered prior actions that determine outcomes. A person’s actions can also be evaluated by their consequences. In order to ensure Ctesiphon’s acquittal and ensure his survival, Demosthenes must prove to his audience that assessing an action’s intentions and its associated consequences is not the most effective way of pursuing justice. Therefore, an individual should not be praised simply because they bear good intentions. He argues that all Athenians of goodwill wish their city saved, and the consequences of their actions resulted in a loss.
Demosthenes is keen to ask his listeners to accord him high honor even though his policy had catastrophic effects. In essence, political judgment differs from moral judgment, given that the latter focuses on an action’s intentions. It is vital to note that Demosthenes advocates for a form of political judgment that reviews the effects of specific action as well as its intentions. It is essential to consider an action’s ability to account for future events. He further proposes that consequences alone do not present all the details involved in a specific action. Manly virtue is an important factor to consider even in circumstances that are characterized by failure. Therefore, political judgment allows individuals to categorize actions as noble even when the intended outcomes were not achieved.
Demosthenes outlines the criteria by which an act is deemed worthy. First, the aforementioned actions must be oriented in the present toward the future. He argues that individuals must be equipped to evaluate issues in the present, predict potential consequences and explain them to an audience. In his defense, Demosthenes argues that his proposals have always been geared towards the future (Demosthenes 45). Therefore, an acceptable political action must be aligned towards future benefits and consequences as opposed to past events. He further argues that worthy actions do not focus on past successes. In essence, a politician must never waste time reminding his audience of past victories.
Planning for future actions is challenging since human beings are incapable of predicting events that are yet to unfold. This monumental task can, however, be achieved by assessing the past actions of people in society. It is vital to apply political intelligence when evaluating people’s actions. Demosthenes invites his audience to judge events whose actions are geared towards future prospects. It is essential to consider the future as was humanly foreseeable at the time the decision to commit to the action was made. He notes that the future that guided a decision becomes difficult to discern as events descend into the past. It is vital to bear in mind that missing what is hidden to the mind’s eye is not a mistake but rather an unfortunate turn of events.
Statesmen must direct their followers to make use of the assets they provide. In essence, providing all that is needed at the outset is the most important course of action. It is therefore essential to judge and action after comprehensively reviewing the contexts and the potential outcomes in a specific scenario. Demosthenes, however, cautions that orienting one’s actions towards the future must not entail the making of promises or the raising of hope. Instead, it involves the dissection of facts to show potential future outcomes. It involves the detailed analysis of an issue’s origin and the evaluation of its progress rather than highlight failures after the fact. Demosthenes’ argument likens Aeschines’ actions to a doctor offering advice after the patient’s demise.
It is essential to note that in matters concerning private life, individuals must act in accordance with ordinary law. However, in politics, it is vital to consider what ancestors would have deemed acceptable. Demosthenes argues in support of the rightness of his decision because matters revolving around self-interest are superseded by those concerned with honor, which was a common Athenian tradition. He argues that his basis for claiming honor is not based merely on the assumption that his policies expressed the sentiments of patriotic Athenian Citizens. Instead, he claims honor because his proposals would be lauded by the city’s forefathers. He focuses on coming across as exceptional without alienating his audience by allowing the jury an equal share of just intentions.
The speech demonstrates Demosthenes’ acts of anticipation while Aeschines expects misfortune and is delighted by the occurrence of catastrophic events. Aeschines revels in accusing others while referencing past victories. Demosthenes encourages his audience to emulate the past rather than be jealous of individuals currently attempting to mimic historical events. He compares himself to past heroes while he declares that the prosecutor resembles a villain whose motive was the destruction of the community.
The trial was a revolt against the control of Athens by an overzealous monarch. It is evident that even though society might want to have the last word on historical events, someone will always take the initiative to outline the faults. This is perhaps because the inability to act on past events prompts people to talk about them. The desire to act seldom interferes with historical debates in the same way it does with future prospects. Evaluating the past and assessing varied perspectives facilitates the identification of traces of a common future which is vital for the regeneration of communities. Debated historical actions maintain communities that will be faced with similar circumstances in the future. The speech “On the Crown” is representative of the classic Greek oratory genre, given that it presents the audience with the standards by which the speaker should be judged. In essence, free and noble action should be emulated when addressing a community’s most pressing needs.
The Liberation Bearers and Eumenides
In “The Liberation Bearers,” the unclear nature of right and wrong decisions is evident throughout the narration. Aeschylus comes across as an intensely complicated character that must be closely evaluated. There are no clear villains and heroes in the narration. Instead, the stories detail the impossible choices people must make. By placing the characters in difficult scenarios where judgment is all but a fantasy, Aeschylus emphasizes the fact that life is unfair and that humanity must create systems that allow individuals to deal with difficult situations. For instance, Orestes’s filial responsibility to Agamemnon is pitted against his duties to Clymanestra. If he does not take the latter’s life, he will be pursued by the Furies (Aeschylus 9). Even though there are no simple right or wrong answers, there are better and worse choices. The fact that Apollo chooses to pursue vengeance means that Orestes must comply with his commands. By remaining faithful to Apollo, Orestes condemns himself to a life of misery in an attempt at preserving society’s laws.
The early goddesses of vengeance referred to as the Furies were tasked with the pursuit of individuals found to have broken sacred laws. In “Eumenides,” they aim to punish Orestes for the murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. They often demonstrate rage and are keen to defend their roles in light of the rise of Olympian gods. Athena is forced to resort to a blend of threats and logic to dissuade the Furies from embarking on an angry rampage. She urges them to embrace their new roles as defenders of justice and Athens. The conflict between the old and new gods represents the struggle between past and present conceptions of justice.
Conclusion
The administration of sound judgment is a complex affair that must consider an individual’s intentions and vision for the future. A jury must be able to conceptualize specific intentions and make decisions after evaluating the impossibilities that characterized the actor’s context regardless of the outcome. Demosthenes’ speech demonstrates how the past bears as much importance as the present and the future when judging a person’s actions. The Liberation Bearers and the Eumenides illustrate the complexity of life’s decisions and the clash between old and contemporary concepts of justice. Therefore, past events and the specific intentions that guide decisions impact future perceptions of the rationality of decisions.
References
Aeschylus. The Oresteia of Aeschylus: The Libation Bearers. Translated by Robin Bond, University of Canterbury, 2014.
Demosthenes. De Corona. Cambridge University Press, 2001.