Imagine a scenario in which: a) you trust the leader of a contigency, like a president or a king, b) this person offers you misguided advice, c) you suffer greatly as a result of said advice, and d) this man or woman you trust continues to hurt you with more egregious errors. Perhaps you are thinking of George W. Bush, when he sent a country in recession to war on credit two times in a row. Maybe my hypothetical situation is reminiscent of poor parenting; e.g., a father works late in the office for five consecutive days, but keeps forgetting to transport his daughter from daycare. Now, I cannot imagine that Bush spent large sums on his presidential campaign with the intent of poorly managing the United States. Likewise, the hypothetical father who neglects his child probably wanted to make more money for his family. However, as I will argue in this paper, a person who assumes the role of confidant or leader is guilty of malintent if they continue to facilitate harmful effects.
Friar Laurence, a religious official in the prestigious and holy Order of St. Francis, was a leader with malintent. He acted as a figure of neutrality between the Montagues and Capulets, yet took actions that harmed both families and ultimately resulted in the death of Romeo and Juliet. Against his better judgment, Friar Laurence impusively married Romeo and Juliet without the blessing of either family. Either unable or unwilling to learn from his earlier mistakes, Friar Laurence devised a poorly planned plot to save Juliet from her engagement to Paris. Worst of all, Friar Laurence trusted an incapable person, Friar John, with a message that could have saved the lives of Romeo and Juliet.
Friar Laurence's first poor decision was to marry Romeo and Juliet. In act five, scene three, and lines 232-235, the friar eloquently downplays the severity of his mistake: "I married them, and their stol'n marriag day was Tybalt's doomsday, whose untimely death banished the new-made bridegroom from...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document