Morals, Will and Freedom
Kant highlights important arguments regarding the concept of Will and individual’s freedom. The philosopher’s work indicates that the Will assumes diverse dimensions under different contexts. He argues that each person has a “rational free Will” and everyone has the potential of identifying three components of morality, which includes the immortality, God and freedom (Kant 3). Interestingly, individuals assume actions that are informed by these three pillars. Furthermore, the philosopher emphasizes that each intended action is resolute and selected by its commissioner. Kant believes that no any situation despite its severity can oblige a person to ignore the three moral virtues unless one accepts to do so. However, he observes that the three pillars of morality are capable of creating situations capable of affecting one’s Will considerably (Kant 49). Individuals in the plays, the Hamlet and Oedipus Rex are trapped in downgrading situations out of their choice. Examining the situations presented by kings Hamlet and Oedipus in the context of Kant’s concept of Will can unable one describe the phenomenon that may characterize “Will” in freedom.
The effect of supernatural forces on humanity is apparent especially in the actions assumed by both Hamlet and Oedipus. The decisions and actions espoused by Hamlet and Oedipus are consequent of the information obtained from their messengers or advisers. For example, Oedipus believes on a rumor that claims that a curse is distressing Thebes. Spiritual intellects argue that the people, cattle and crops are dying and the entire Thebes community has low morale (Sophocles 26). Consequently, they claim that the only effective approach of correcting this situation entails identifying who killed the city’s previous king. Surprisingly, Oedipus approves the idea, and he is totally commitment to identifying the murderer. Similarly, a ghost visited Hamlet informing him that his uncle Claudius was responsible for his father’s death. He also believes that the deteriorated state of his city is attributable to past ills. These made him prioritize the need of correcting the condition (Shakespeare 28). These situations provide a clear highlight of the nature of one’s Will in freedom. It is apparent that both characters might have adopted very different actions in unbiased environment or if they had not received the counsels. The messengers or the spiritual advisers affected Oedipus and Hamlet’s free Will.
Kant emphasized the idea of free Will; however, the Will of others may often override that of the main character influencing his or her actions (Kant 4). Evidently, the Will of the community affected decisions and activities of both Oedipus and Hamlet. The plays exemplify the existence of inconsistency between the people’s assumptions and free Will. Central to each tragedy, there exists an overall struggle between the humanity inclination to endorse fate and the quest of controlling it. Oedipus situation indicates that fate outweighs the human Will. The harder a person tries to challenge his fate, the more he or she hurls into the same fate. For example, characters in the Oedipus Rex play eventually surrender to their fates after struggling to resist them. Moreover, Shakespeare’s play indicates that the human’s Will is indomitable because the preference of evil and good creates a major predicament in people’s lives.
Oedipus, a prominent king can hardly see anything until he blinds himself. This challenges the freedom of people coercion to realize forces that interfere with their free Will. Introspection is realized in Oedipus only after his blindness obliges him to stop evaluating the world around him or the Will of his community. Surprisingly, Oedipus a stubborn character attempts to challenge his fate, but he ultimately surrenders to self-destruction. It is after destroying himself that the Oedipus was able to realize his weakness and failures that led to his downfall. In the Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet is aware of his identity because he understands his weaknesses and his capability of exercising his free Will. For example, he tries to face his fate by utilizing intellectual strategies (Shakespeare 53). Despite external forces, Hamlet is convinced that he is capable of practicing his free Will to realize his goals. However, he is firmly entangled inside himself because of embracing ideologies spelt by the Will of his community. He attempts to comfort self by claiming that no particular action is either bad or good, but one’s thought define what is good or bad. Hamlet is a strong and skilled character; however, external forces made him assume biased positions that brought him down eventually. The struggle in managing opposing expectations and alleviating an agonizing conscience creates an environment in which Hamlet can hardly realize his free Will. Hamlet’s case presents a stiff rivalry between moral virtues of God and immortality. Consequently, Hamlet is unable to realize his free Will because the spiritual forces demand him to assume a particular direction while the man pressures him into adopting another.
Sophocles’ play further highlights that Oedipus survives under the outstanding favor of the gods. Oedipus is fully lost in his own destiny after learning that he was deemed to murder his father and marry his mother (Sophocles 25). This Prophesy limited the freedom of Oedipus in executing his free Will. The controversy indicated by the play regarding the effort of Oedipus in facing his fate makes one question the feasibility of individuals in exercising their free Wills according to Kant’s viewpoint. For example, the dramatic irony reigns, besides Oedipus’s excellent effort to frustrate the prophecy. Even his liberal wife who encourages him to ignore prophet because they have ever been liars succumbs to reality. Initially, Oedipus accomplishes the first phase of the prophecy by freeing Thebes from the autocracy of Sphinx (Sophocles 35). After being selected the king, he also unconsciously accepts the people’s offer of Jocasta as his bride. This fulfills the second part of prophesy, which claimed that Oedipus was to marry his natural mother. In these contexts, one wonders whether Oedipus had the freedom of executing his free Will or his fate was essentially predetermined. It is astonishing to realize that Oedipus culminates his destruction while trying to evade his fate. Essentially, he surrenders to the caprice of his fate by applying his free Will.
Alternatively, Hamlet’s freedom of practicing his free Will is extensively influenced by the ghost that advices him to punish Claudius. The ghost argues that Claudius must die because he has conducted a “murder most foul” by exterminating his brother (Shakespeare 34). Hamlet may conform to his fate or ignore it and face the consequences of the same. He constantly stops from adopting this choice by failing to act. Nevertheless, his mental conflicts eventually compel him into taking revenge. This implies that the ghost strained Hamlet into acting against his conscience. Furthermore, the entirely opposed forces paralyzed his life. Conclusively, the plays Oedipus Rex and Hamlet affirm the intricacy of individuals in exercising their free Will because external factors can substantially affect their actions.
Works cited
Kant, Immanuel, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. James W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hacket Publishing, 1993. (pp. 1-3; 49-50) ISBN 0-87220-166-X.
Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Germany: Tauchnitz, 1868. Print
Sophocles, Oedipus the King. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]