The morality or immorality of a person`s actions can be judged according to various ethical criteria and theories. Overall, there are several approaches to this issue. Regarding Utilitarian ethics, we can say that the morality of the action is determined by its outcome, we should also mention Kantian ethics. The prominent German philosopher believed that an action can be moral, even if it has disastrous effects on other people, under one indispensable condition, that the person`s intention is moral. Thus, we can unknowingly harm other people, even if we intend to do good.
This ethical controversy has always been a subject of thorough philosophical analysis. As regards literature, we may single out a great number of examples. Our task is to show how this concept is reflected in different epochs, especially if we are speaking about dramaturgy. For instance, we may compare such plays as “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles and “Trifles” by Susan Glaspell. Although this motif is a dominant one in the works of these two authors, we may say that they look at this issue from different standpoints.
In Sophocles’ tragedy, Oedipus is desperately trying to find out the truth of his birth, which eventually results in a terrible catastrophe. Even though he is trying to avoid it in every way possible, every step that he takes only brings him closer to it. However, it is widely believed by many literary critics that Oedipus should not be vied only as a helpless puppet, because some of his actions were not predetermined by some overwhelming force. We may observe this ethical controversy; his desire to know the truth, which is always a good intention eventually, harms many people that surround him. In his play, Sophocles reflects the opinion, which existed in Greek philosophy, that a person could harm other people only through ignorance, not because he or she intends to do it. The main character, Oedipus is a bright example of such a theory.
As far as the play “Trifles” by Susan Glaspell is concerned, we may observe a similar phenomenon. Three women are trying to discover the truth about the mysterious death of Mr., Wright. Certainly, the intention to punish the murdered in terms of law has always been a noble cause. However, when Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale finally unravel this case, they realize that the truth should be concealed, because it will harm an innocent person (innocent in terms of their morals), which often contradicts the existing legislation,
These women also realize that their intentions albeit good in their core, may have fatal consequences to Mrs. Wright, therefore, they decide to mislead the police. Certainly, these two authors do not mean that ignorance is blissful because ignorance is also a form of cruelty as some philosophers say. It seems that the main message they want to convey is that people should always doubt the rightfulness of their actions. One should never be one hundred percent sure that he is doing the right thing. If we try to summarize these two plays most shortly, we may recall such Latin proverb as “To err is human”. Even the most intelligent people can be mistaken in their judgment.
Thus, we can conclude that these two plays brilliantly demonstrate the most difficult ethical controversy of all times, although we cannot tell that this controversy is resolved in these plays.