|
|
Post by Dominique Martin on Dec 2, 2016 0:14:31 GMT
Brutus' assassinating of Caesar is a great example of Rome's morals, in that they ally didn't have any. They wanted power and glory and didn't know morals to have any part in that. Anytime someone is viewed as a threat they attack. I believe at this time in Rome they actually had a law stating that if someone was viewed as a tyrant or a threat to the government it was acceptable to execute them without a trial. So between this law and Cassius' instigating, Brutus' own morals were pushed aside.
Also, I apologize for the very late posts. Our internet has been acting up so I didn't have much time with the text. :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Dec 2, 2016 15:46:52 GMT
I think you've read enough about the Romans to know that it is not accurate to say that that Romans had no morals. What about the traitor of Falerii? What about Cicero? What about Cato? And even as far back as Aeneas (according to Virgil), the Romans had a very strong sense of the importance of loyalty.
Furthermore, does Plutarch say that Brutus' assassination of Caesar was LAWFUL?! From where are you getting that information?
Let's think a little harder about what Plutarch has to say about both Caesar and Brutus' characters . . . I believe that if you look a little harder, you'll realize that they really were men of principle, even if we may have disagreed with some aspects of those principles.
|
|
artsykat
Junior Member
Hello, I'm Kateri, nice to meet you~!
Posts: 51 
|
Post by artsykat on Dec 3, 2016 3:20:09 GMT
I can see why the senate and Brutus murdered Caesar. Caesar was not only taking to much power for a dictator, he was basically declaring himself king. When about sixty members of the senate are against a member, as well as the people, what's to stop them from just killing him off? This was at the time were anyone in power could crucify anyone they thought guilty, and the gladiators were for entertainment. For the Romans, who didn't really know any better, aside from the philosophers, this could easily be seen as a just act in their eyes. But to your point, the Romans in power easily lost sight of their morals, and would sacrifice that for what they thought was honorable or just  |
|
|
|
Post by Christopher Martin on Dec 5, 2016 14:01:11 GMT
The comment about Caesar being "king" needs to be highlighted . . . that's PRECISELY the reason which, for many Romans, was the last straw. If we look back to some previous Roman dictators (for example, Camillus), we find that they sometimes held power a little longer than was necessary in order to get a few more things done by using the dictator's powers . . . a sort of strong-arm way to bypass the senate, and it was certainly legal.
What made Caesar different is that, even after holding the title of dictator for several months, he made it clear that he intended for it to be perpetual: he had not resigned the office on account of wanting to strong-arm reform, but because he intended to hold the office forever! This was exactly the sort of situation the Romans had founded the Republic to avoid!
So then if we're going to talk about morals, what about Caesar's morals??!! If there was no law to allow the Senate to depose an illegitimate tyrant (which is what Caesar had become), then there was certainly no law against killing that tyrant! At that point, we have to talk about principles instead: who do you believe was more moral: the strong-armed tyrant who attempted to reform Rome, or the assassin's who resorted the power of the people's Senate by getting rid of that un-lawful, illegitimate tyrant?
It comes down to a question of what you believe is more important: reform (because the Senate was too divided to accomplish real reform), or the health of the Republic? Either way, one could be said to be acting morally . . .
|
|
