Journal 15
Submitted by samuelc on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 09:12
Regardless of whether what Portia did was legal or not, she performed her part quite nicely. I do think that if I was to look at this objectively, I would have to say that it was a bit unjust. First off, she wasn't a judge. That right there blows any legal defense she has out of the water. But also, the contract said nothing about not spilling blood, it just said "flesh". Usually, flesh (or skin) goes hand in hand with blood. From a legal standpoint, I would say that Shylock was treated unjustly. He and Antonio had a deal, and Antonio didn't hold up his end of the bargain. Shylock had the right to one pound of his flesh. But I find myself in favor of Portia, despite whether or not it was "just".
»
- samuelc's blog
- Login to post comments
Definitions
I hadn't thought of it before, but looking up the definition of "flesh" from back then would probably be very interesting. I agree that flesh could mean blood as well. I wonder how the Shakespearean people defined it.
-Renee Ward
What Shakespeare wants
I think Shakespeare's aim is to put us in favour of Portia. Whether her the justice is "for all," with Shylock being the bad guy in the play, is he really deserving of the justice? It brings up a couple questions. Portia and Antonio you could say, achieved justice. How much do our just rights impede upon others (like Shylock's in the play)?
Ryan K Bishop
Hmm, that is an interesting point
That raises a really good question: Is justice for all, or do you have to earn it? In my opinion, justice is something that should be universal, even though true justice might not always be fair. So even though Shylock hasn't exacly earned it, he was right in thinking that he should have justice. But I agree that Shakespeare tries to put us on Portia's side.
agreed
Justice is like Rights. It's not something that you get because you earn it, but it/they are something to be protected for everyone, regardless. Even the "undeserving" need justice and their rights, otherwise the "deserving" are going to lose them. Bradley
In That Sense You Are Right
But what about human rights? I know they didn't really have them back in the day but anyone can see that what Shylock is doing is inhuman. Should we grant a person who is essentially not acting like a human any sort of human justice? Maybe I'm looking at it to abstractly, but if Shylock is consciously making an inhuman decision then he doesn't deserve to be treated with any kindness.
*Tina
Shylock's humanity
If the situation were that Antonio was forced to take the pound of flesh bargain, then that might be a concern. But he willingly entered into the bargain, not for what might be considered a sound reason, but in order for his friend to get all dressed up and show off for a woman he wanted to woo to marriage. This seems a pretty frivolous reason for going into such debt and risk (like risking a paycheck on a craps game or game of 21 or by going into debt for a big screen tv for watching the Super Bowl). Why must Shylock be made to pay the price for Antonio's poor decision? Are we inhumane, despite the dire consequences, if we expect someone to hold up their end of the bargain, even though it's damaging to them to do so? Bradley
Ahh, justice
Having read "The Republic" in my philosophy class and discussed justice, I still don't think I have a firm grip on the concept of justice. But one thing is that justice is not related to kindness. It has to do with law. When law is broken, there are consequences. Unfortunately for Antonio, their law permitted Shylock to take a pound of flesh because they made that in the contract. I agree that Shylock is being cruel, but we were talking about justice in the situation. So I don't know if there is a one true form of justice, it just relates to the government's policy on it.
you're not alone
Determining what is "just" is challenging. Maybe in philosophy, not knowing what the focus of the class is, you'll talk about "rule" and "act" utilitarianism. I can't articulate either all that well, but basically, Shylock's wanting the pound of flesh would be "just" in the sense of rule utilitarianism because they made a contract, and the most important thing there is to follow the rules and for society to follow rules, that's to the benefit of all. That's the perspective Shylock seems to argue his case from. The others argue from more of an "act" perspective, in seeing that the act will not promote the greater good (that's arguable though, given the economic consequences possible of allowing contracts to be voided --in a commercial society--for reasons that having nothing to do with commerce. However, if arguing for mercy, that is something, an act, that is good to spread around. So, arguing for the act of mercy, and making society more merciful, would be a good thing in the long run. Problem is, these two notions end up butting heads and making an easy answer, one that all will find to be "just," all but impossible. Bradley