I have always found the Trojan horse to be an interesting concept. Whether one agrees with its ethics or not, the idea of hiding imminent defeat inside a peace offering can definitely be seen as clever. Though it is a clever tactic, its ethics can be debated quite easily. One side may argue that there are no honor-worthy traits involved with the manipulative nature of the horse. It brings about an almost one sided fight by lowering the Trojan defenses. The way their defenses are lowered are also questionable, as the Trojans are told that the horse is a treaty, and that the Greeks have left Troy. "But war is war," said the other viewpoint. The Greeks and Trojans are in battle, so any method that ensures one's side comes closer to victory should be used. Look at World War II and the bombing of Japan. It needed to be done in retaliation of Pearl Harbor. Any method that brings victory closer should be used. Or should it? Though the horse was a genius idea, whether it is honorable or not seems to be up to each individual.
P.S. I commented on Noah's and Ethan's posts.
I, too, found the concept of the brazened horse disguised as a peace treaty, but instead a tool of war, as quite fascinating. The question of where to draw the line in ethics between the clash of Troy and Greece is wholesome and provoking. This essentially can be narrowed down to the question- can cunning be virtuous?
ReplyDeleteWell there is the saying "All is fair in love and war". My personal thought is that a lot of the time when fighting or war tactics are involved, people tend to go with whatever will get the job done regardless of what it is that they are doing.
ReplyDeletePersonally I think they could have been a little less gullible and taken precautionary measures rather than curious ones. It's their own fault that they brought the horse in!
ReplyDelete