Essay Arugment on Julius Caesar play. essay question is:  2 In Julius Caesar , there are no moral absolutes: no character is entirely good or entirely bad. Throughout the play, Julius Caesar, it is evident that Marcus Brutus is entirely good proving the statement there are no moral absolutes in the play to be false. The only action that Brutus does that is perceived as “bad” is justifiable, rendering it as “good.” With no other bad action or thing done by Brutus in the rest of the play, Brutus is irrefragably entirely good.  The only action that Brutus does that was perceived as bad was the assassination of Julius Caesar. This action, however, is actually not bad and is a good action as it was justifiable. The reason that Brutus killed Julius Caesar was not for personal gain and was for the benefit of Rome. Brutus clearly exhibits that he did not kill Caesar for personal reasons in the line, “It must be by his death And for my part I know no personal cause to spurn at him…” Due to Brutus having a justifiable reason for killing Caesar that is “good” and is of benefit to others and not just Brutus, then the action of killing Caesar is a good one. The argument could be brought up that murder is never justifiable, and therefore Brutus is not entirely good. The argument that murder is never justifiable does not apply to more ancient times when the play is set and is thus not relevant to the play. This is to killing being more acceptable in ancient times than in modern times of which this notion originates from particularly due to a very violent 20 th century. Therefore, as Brutus’ only action that is perceived as “bad” is actually good, and he has no other bad actions in the play, then Brutus is entirely good. Thus, the statement that there are no moral absolutes in Julius Caesar is incorrect as exhibited by Marcus Brutus. .

1. Essay Arugment on Julius Caesar play. essay question is:
2
In
Julius Caesar
, there are no moral absolutes: no character is entirely good or
entirely bad.
Throughout the play, Julius Caesar, it is evident that Marcus
Brutus is entirely good proving the statement there are no moral
absolutes in the play to be false. The only action that Brutus
does that is perceived as “bad” is justifiable, rendering it as
“good.” With no other bad action or thing done by Brutus in the
rest of the play, Brutus is irrefragably entirely good. The only
action that Brutus does that was perceived as bad was the
assassination of Julius Caesar. This action, however, is actually
not bad and is a good action as it was justifiable. The reason
that Brutus killed Julius Caesar was not for personal gain and
was for the benefit of Rome. Brutus clearly exhibits that he did
not kill Caesar for personal reasons in the line, “It must be by
his death And for my part I know no personal cause to spurn at
him…” Due to Brutus having a justifiable reason for killing
Caesar that is “good” and is of benefit to others and not just
Brutus, then the action of killing Caesar is a good one. The
argument could be brought up that murder is never justifiable,
and therefore Brutus is not entirely good. The argument that
murder is never justifiable does not apply to more ancient times
when the play is set and is thus not relevant to the play. This is
to killing being more acceptable in ancient times than in modern
times of which this notion originates from particularly due to a
very violent 20
th
century. Therefore, as Brutus’ only action that is perceived as
“bad” is actually good, and he has no other bad actions in the

2. play, then Brutus is entirely good. Thus, the statement that there
are no moral absolutes in Julius Caesar is incorrect as exhibited
by Marcus Brutus.