To kill in cold blood takes a rather special person. The murderer has to plan, contemplate, visualize, commit, and, ultimately, kill. Personally, I don't think I could kill anyone; I don't even hunt or fish (not that I judge anyone that does), because I don't like hurting animals. However, I don't mind squashing a bug or eating meat; I have limits, and my sympathy for animals only goes so far. I don't like killing animals because it makes me feel bad, but I wouldn't kill a human because I think it is morally wrong. Where was this sense of morality constructed? Was it nature (my genetics), or was it nurture (my upbring and culture)?
In Macbeth (the character), I see a man whose initial reactions to the thought of murder seem to indicate that both his upbringing and genetics lead him to know that murdering in cold blood is morally wrong, regardless of the advantage he gains from the killing. I'm not comfortable accepting that Macbeth's natural instinct was to kill King Duncan because it was advantageous for Macbeth and the most efficient way for him to become king.
The ideas of nature v. nuture, absolute morality, and natural instinct are all very complex. But, I'd like to hear your two scents.
the only thing that i would have said is that when u kill someone and fell good about it.. well thats kinda sick, if u ask me. it was kinda getting revenge on the other person by getting involved with the killing. i think that he would have been a better king if he would have earned it honestly instead of killing and doing what the wiches had said
ReplyDelete