The Tempest's Relation to Evan's Enormous Question

Is revenge something to be considered "bad" or is it "good". It is interesting how the person carrying out the revenge thinks it is a good thing because it may make them feel better. However, most people that receive the revengeful act believe it to be a "bad" thing because it is harmful to them. Prospero wanted to seek revenge on his usurping brother for betraying him and taking the throne hostage. Instead of taking revenge though, Prospero ends up forgiving his brother (forgot the name...Sebastian??)instead of harming him. This is one of the overlying morals the book places forth. It is commonly said to be honorable and worthy to give forgiveness instead of revenge. I wonder if Prospero would have taken revenge if he would be looked at as any less than he was when he didn't. Or would he feel more satisfied if he did carry out vengeful act?

Henry IV Part I's Relation to Evan's Enormous Question

Throughout Henry IV Part I Hal is balancing on a teeter totter between a civilized life of honor and nobility that may be considered the "good" life especially supported by the King, Hotspur and many of the noble characters determined to live a life of honor and the life of laziness and robbery. The pub crawlers (Falstaff) take on a perspective of drunkenness and gluttony but justify it with reasons of human nature and "common sense". Falstaff's point near the end of Act V Scene ii, when he states, "Honor prick's me on. Yea, but how if honor prick me off when I come on? Can honor set to a leg? No. Or an arm? No. Or take away the grief of a wound? No.... What is honor? A word. What is in that word, "honor”? What is that "honor". Air." presents a very interesting and arguable point. Falstaff clearly does not agree with the ideology of honor and valor, instead, he believes in common sense and the sustainability of life and pleasures. I could see Falstaff saying something like Live Hard, not Die Hard.
Is Falstaff and the pub crawlers' idea about life the "good" one or is it the King and the nobility's idea that is the "good" one? I found it interesting that Hal ended up choosing the life of nobility and honor in spite of Falstaff's negative influence of trying to convince him to become a thief, justifying robbery. Hal makes a profound and bold statement when he says to Falstaff after Falstaff has pleaded to Hal to not banish him when he becomes king, Hal says, " I do, I will". This remark signifies the turning point in the play where Hal gravitates to the ideology of honor. Is honor still considered to be a "good" attribute to show today? Has the magnitude of how "good" it is changed since the days of Shakespeare?

Oedipus' Relation to Evan's Enormous Question

The parents of Oedipus believe that, because their son is prophesized to kill the father and marry his mother, it is justified or OK to wound him and leave him on a hillside for death to take . Most parents would strongly disagree with this rationalization of killing their own child. If two parents believe it is OK, but the rest of the parental population thinks it is terrible and a bad think to do, what is the overall verdict? Are children basically taught what is right from wrong from his or her parents? Or is therre some naturaly instilled values of good and bad? In Oedipus' case, he did not have the chance to require the basic teachings of his parents. Does this jeopodize his view of "good" and "bad"? Killing and incest are basically "bad" things to do today, and were also probably "bad" things to do in the ancient Greek period. Do "bad" and "good" change over time? Tiresias, the blind "seer", acts possibly as a third party when it comes to deciding on a matter. Although Tiresias does not address good and bad he proposes the truth to Oedipus.

Evan's Enormous Question

------------Universally speaking, what is right and what is wrong?---------------


This topic interests me because everyone at some time wonders why people do stuff that they believe is "good", while others may believe it is "bad". Is it all a matter of opinion? Terrorists for example. Is there a universal, superior, deciding being that determines what is right and what is wrong, or is it just a majority rule? These questions have inspired this overall Enormous Question. Is the minority's opinion always wrong? It is a very interesting topic that I would like to go deeper into.