Discussion Question

Why does Shakespeare choose not to describe the actual act of killing Duncan. In the play, the murder happens offstage. Why not describe it?

What's natural?

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 cents.

Musing on Macbeth

Shakespeare concludes scene i of Macbeth with a couplet: "Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair:/Hover through the fog and filthy air." A couplet usually marks the end of a sonnet, so it is interesting that Shakespeare chooses to end the opening scene of Macbeth with a couplet; it seems he is not only ending the scene, but also concluding that the play will begin and end in moral confusion. In additon, "Fair is Foul and Foul is Fair" distorts the typical moral order of good and bad, right and wrong, and good and evil. Moreover, it is funny that by using a couplet to begin the play, instead of end it, Shakespeare distorts the "order" of the play.

Another intruiging line in the opening scene is the second witch's response to the first witch's question "When shall we three meet again?" The second witch replies, "When the battle's lost and won." It is important to take note of the word "and," as it shows the "battle" will be both lost AND won, not lost OR won. This introduces even more confusion. What might this mean?