What Is Wrong In The Crucible

933 Words2 Pages

Would one rather die honest or live a lie? In The Crucible by Arthur Miller, Reverend Hale states that “no principle no matter how glorious” is worth dying for. Hale argues that it is better to give a false confession than to die for a principle of belief. However, the characters Giles Corey and Elizabeth Proctor would rather die for beliefs than to live with regret and guilt. Hale is correct that one should not die in the hands of an accusation but one would rather be stubborn and refuse to allow others to influence their beliefs then speak a lie that would undermine their morals. In a case of survival and self-greed, Parris and Proctor, are willing to put their morals aside agreeing with Hale’s statement. There is no right or wrong but through Giles Corey, Elizabeth Proctor, Proctor, and Parris the audience is shown that individual morals is the foundation to the statement made by Hale. As a result it test their true motives, beliefs, and characters. The Crucible is a dark and depressing play. …show more content…

There is no wrong answer. There is no right answer. It does not make one a bad person for disagreeing that in some cases morals can be compromised and it does not make one a better person for agreeing with Reverend Hale. Mr. Putnam needed a reason to explain why his children kept dying. He came to a conclusion that the devil came in the form of people. He made himself believe because he had no other explanation so he believed that witches roamed the streets of Salem. Theocracy for this reason has failed to be a prominent system of government. Through the characters in The Crucible Arthur Miller showed how different beliefs can provoke controversy and lead to disputes. Everyone is entitle to their moral, their beliefs, and their pride and with the help of The Crucible the audience is shown that everyone is different and they have to rely on themselves and their beliefs to live a guiltless

Open Document